ANAND S. LAD Vs. AMIRA ABDUL RAZAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. S. G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) The above Writ Petition inter-alia challenges the judgment dated 27.06.2007 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal dismissing the Eviction Appeal No. 17/05 filed by the petitioner/tenants against the judgment and order dated 20.05.2005 passed by the Rent Controller at Panaji, in case No. ADDL/RENT/4/94 filed by the respondents for the eviction of the petitioner's mother/original tenant.

(3.) Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioner are that by a lease agreement executed in September, 1967, the grandfather of the respondents leased the suit premises to the petitioner's father for residential purpose. By virtue of a family settlement entered into on 24.01.1989, the respondents became the owners of the property in which the suit premises are located on the first floor of one of the residential houses out of the other residential houses located in the property. The property came to be partitioned in the Inventory Proceedings No. 80/89 and inter-alia the suit premises were allotted to the respondents. On 23.09.1993 the respondents issued a legal notice to the petitioner's mother to vacate the suit premises on the ground that it was required by the respondents for their personal occupation. By a reply dated 25.10.1993, the said mother of the petitioner inter-alia expressed her inability to reply to the legal notice in the absence of the description of the property which was allotted to the respondents. On 27.10.1993 the respondents supplied the description of the property allotted to them to the mother of the petitioner. By subsequent reply dated 22.11.1993, the mother of the petitioner challenged the bonafide of the respondents in seeking her eviction and inter-alia contended that there are four vacant residential premises which they could occupy and an eviction application was filed by the respondents on 31.03.1994 against the petitioner's mother which was registered as Rent Case No. 4/1994. Thereafter, an amendment was carried out by the respondents inter-alia claiming that their need as stated in the eviction application does not subsist and raising a new ground of requirement of personal occupation only in relation to respondent no.1 stating that she has completed her LL.B. in April, 1995 and has obtained a sanad and is working in the Chamber of an Advocate at Panaji and needs the suit premises for her own occupation. The application for amendment was opposed but however allowed by order dated 08.01.1997. An additional Written statement was filed thereafter to the amended application by the petitioner's mother. Thereafter, after recording of evidence of both the parties, the learned Rent Controller by judgment dated 20.05.2005 allowed the eviction application and inter-alia directed the petitioner to be evicted from the disputed premises. An appeal was preferred before the Administrative Tribunal by the petitioner herein which also came to be dismissed by judgment and order dated 27.06.2007. Being aggrieved by the said judgments of the authorities below, the petitioner has preferred the above Writ Petition.