CAMILO PIEDADE COLACO Vs. CHANDRAKANT S KENI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated January 31, 1994 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, in Eviction Appeal No.19/1991. The petitioners are successors-in-title of the original petitioner Shri Camilo Piedade Colaco. The original petitioner was landlord in respect of House No.90 (Northern Part) (suit premises) at Aquem Alto, Margao. Respondent No.1 was inducted in the said premises as tenant on monthly rent basis. The original petitioner, by legal notice, called upon the respondent to vacate and hand over the suit premises. Since the respondent did not vacate the suit premises, the original petitioner instituted eviction petition being case No.BLDG/102/ARC-II/1986 before the Rent Controller/Dy. Collector, South Division, at Margao, initially on two grounds and later on added one more ground, namely (a) bona fide personal requirement of the landlord and his family; (b) tenant acquiring a vacant house at Porvorim, Bardez; and (c) sub-letting by the tenant. The said petition was allowed by the Rent Controller by Judgment and Order dated January 29, 1991 on the first two grounds, though. Against that decision, the respondent carried the matter in appeal before the Administrative Tribunal of Goa, Daman and Diu at Panaji by way of Eviction Appeal No.19/1991. By the impugned Judgment and Order, the appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed and instead the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord and his family as well as the tenant having secured alternative accommodation, was set aside. As a result, the eviction petition came to be dismissed by the impugned Judgment and Order. Against this decision of the appellate Authority, the present writ petition has been filed. Accordingly, only above said two grounds are pressed into service before this Court for eviction of the respondent.

(2.) WHILE this writ petition was pending, the respondent has filed Misc. Civil Application No.327/2002 praying that copy of the consent terms in the matter between the landlord and another tenant V.G. Kamat dated 11.4.2001 be taken on record and the Court may pass appropriate orders as the Court deems fit, including remand of the case. In this application, it is asserted that while the proceedings against the respondent were pending, the landlord has entered into consent terms in respect of the neighbouring premises (Southern Part) of the said premises and, therefore, the ground of personal requirement does not survive due to this subsequent development. This application also asserts that the main reason for instituting the eviction proceedings against the respondent was that the suit house was required for the requirement of the family of the landlord to come to Margao for the children to study, which requirement is no longer subsisting. It is also asserted that the original petitioner has died and having regard to the composition of the present family of his children, the property already received in possession from another tenant Shri Kamat would satisfy the present requirement of the landlord. It is on this basis, it is pleaded in this application that in view of the above said subsequent developments, which have eclipsed the requirement of the landlord, the Court would reckon those aspects and answer the issue against the landlord and if required to remand the case to the lower Court to ascertain whether the requirement is bona fide.

(3.) ADVERTING to the first ground, namely, personal bonafide requirement of the landlord and his family, the case made out in the petition by the landlord/original petitioner was that the petitioner having returned from Africa for good to Goa in April, 1986 and that he has five children, out of which two were schooling at the relevant time at Margao, the entire suit house was required for his bonafide occupation. The petition also discloses that the petitioner has filed another eviction petition against tenant (V.G. Kamat) occupying the southern part of the said house, on the ground of personal bonafide requirement. In other words, it is clearly asserted that the requirement of the landlord for himself and his family was of the entire house, namely the northern as well as southern part. The petition also asserts that his family was presently staying in the ancestral house which was insufficient and cannot accommodate his entire family, comprising of grown up children. The application also asserts that the original petitioner had no other house of his own in Margao city. The case as made out by the original petitioner/ landlord was resisted by the respondent. According to the respondent, the claim of the petitioners was not bonafide. The parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims. The Rent Controller, upon analysing the materials on record, accepted the case made out by the original petitioner/landlord that his requirement of the suit premises was bonafide for himself and his family. The reasons which weighed with the Rent Controller to accept that the petitioner's claim can be discerned from the following portion of his Judgment, which reads, thus: