NARMADABAI DAMODAR DIUKAR Vs. CHANDRAKANT V PILANKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Damodar Diukar, the first petitioner (since deceased) and the father of the other petitioners let out a tenement in a building owned by him at Dattawadi, Mapusa, Goa to the first respondent on a monthly rent of Rs. 145/- The petitioners filed an eviction application against the respondent in the year 1986 on the ground that the petitioner No. 6 required the suit premises for his personal bona fide use and occupation. The other grounds on which the eviction application was based, were sub-letting, arrears of rent and cessation of occupation of the suit premises for a continuous period of more than 4 months. The written statement was filed by the respondents contending, inter alia, that the petitioners did not need the suit premises as they had various other properties in Mapusa itself, which could be occupied by them. It was also pleaded that the respondents were not in arrears of rent and that the suit premises was let out to both, the first and the second respondents and, therefore, there was no question of respondent No. 1 having sublet the suit premises to respondent No. 2. Evidence of both the parties was recorded before the Rent Controller. By an order dated 28. 2. 1995, the Rent Controller rejected the grounds made out by the petitioners with regard to arrears of rent, cessation of occupation of the suit premises for a period of more than 4 months and sub-letting. However, the Rent Controller allowed the eviction application on the ground that the petitioner No. 6 required the suit premises for his bona fide personal use and occupation.

(2.) BEING aggrieved by this Order of the Rent Controller, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Administrative Tribunal. Cross objections were also filed by the petitioners. The Administrative Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the Rent Controller. The eviction application was also dismissed. The Tribunal found that the petitioner No. 6 along with other petitioners was residing in Margao in a tenanted premises. It held that the question of petitioner No. 6 requiring the suit premises would not arise as the suit premises were situate in Mapusa; whereas the petitioner No. 6 was employed in Margao. Moreover, according to the Administrative Tribunal, since the petitioner had a vacant house at Mapusa which could be used for their personal occupation, the case made out by the petitioners that they required the suit premises for the personal use and occupation of the petitioner No. 6 was not genuine.

(3.) IT has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the suit premises were let out only to Chandrakant Pilankar, i. e. the first respondent herein. This respondent had left the premises after he and his sons had constructed a house in Verla-Canca, near Mapusa. The brother Raghunath Pilankar had been sublet the suit premises by respondent No. 1 without any written consent from the petitioners and, therefore, the first respondent had sublet the suit premises. It was further submitted that once respondent No. 1 acquired premises of his own, the appellate Court could not have disallowed the application as a case that bonafide requirement had been made out. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that it was improper for the appellate Court to decide which property owned by the petitioners should be occupied bythem. The learned Counsel submitted that all premises owned by the petitioners in Mapusa were tenanted and, therefore, it was not possible for them to occupy those tenanted premises. Furthermore, it was urged that the conclusion of the appellate Court that the suit premises were not required for bonafide requirement of the petitioner No. 6, was based on a misreading of the evidence and based on conjunctures and surmises. Learned Counsel relied on the Judgments in the case of Raga Vendra Kumar vs. Firm Prem Machinery and Co. , (2000) 1 SCC 679; Sashi Kapila vs. R. P. Ashwin, (2002) 1 SCC 583; Akhileshwar Kumar and ors. vs. Mustaqim and ors. , (2003) 1 SCC 462; and Atma S. Berar vs. Mukhtiar Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 3.