HANUMAN MAHADEO NARVEKAR ALIAS SHIRODKAR Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question involved in the present Appeal is whether premises which are less than fifteen years old are excluded from the protection of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Rent, Lease and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Control Act" for short ). The facts in the present Appeal are not disputed. The appellants who are the original plaintiffs, filed a suit before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, on 28th November, 1997. The main contentions raised in the plaint were that the appellants being owners of a commercial building situated at Mapusa, had leased part of the premises to the defendants by a deed of lease dated 30th November, 1985. The building in which the leased premises was situated was constructed in the year 1985. The lease was for a period of five years commencing from 1st March, 1985, and for a monthly rent of Rs. 8,645/ -. The lease was terminated with effect from the midnight of 30th September, 1997, by notice of 14th August, 1997. The respondents were requested to hand over vacant possession of the demised premises to the appellants on 1st October, 1997. As the respondents failed to deliver possession of the demised premises, the appellants instituted the civil suit before the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, for eviction and for a further decree for mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 30,000/- per month, from lst October, 1997, till the date of eviction. Issues were framed in the suit after the respondents had filed their written statement. One of the issues was whether the defendants proved that the civil Court had no jurisdiction to try and entertain the suit between the landlord and the tenant, in view of the provisions of the Rent Control Act. Evidence was led by both the appellants and the respondents. By Judgment and Decree of 30th April, 2003, the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, dismissed the suit of the appellants only on the ground that the Rent Control Act was applicable and, therefore, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The Court also took the view that the appellants did not require the premises for their bona fide use and occupation. Aggrieved by this Judgment and Order, the appellants filed the present appeal before this Court.

(2.) SHRI Lotlikar, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that the provisions of the Rent Control Act are not at all applicable in the present case as the provisions of Section 3 (c) of the Act exempts newly constructed buildings for a period of fifteen years from the date of their completion from the purview of the Act. Undisputedly, the building was completed in 1985 and, therefore, the exemption granted under the Act continued till the year 2000. The suit was instituted in 1997 when the exemption still operated qua the appellants' building and,therefore, eviction of the respondents was sought under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned counsel further submitted that the suit filed before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, was not barred by the provisions of the Rent Control Act. He relied on the judgments in the case of D. C. Bhatia and Ors. vs. Union of India and Anr. , (1995)1 SCC 104, Parripati Chandrashekharrao and Sons vs. Alapati Jalaiah, AIR 1995 SC 1781, Om Parkash Gupta vs. Dig Vijendrapal Gupta, AIR 1982 SC 1230 and Lal Chand and Anr. vs. District Judge, Agra and Ors. , (1999) 8 SCC 351, Ramesh Chandra vs. III Additional District Judge and Ors. , (1992)1 SCC 751, Saleem vs. District Judge Muzaffarnagar and Ors. , (1998)7 SCC 242, (1998)8 SCC 351, Ram Saroop Rai vs. Smt. Lilavati, AIR 1982 945, Malpe Vishwanath Acharya and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra and Anr. , (1998) 2 SCC 1.

(3.) ON the other hand, Shri Ramani for the respondents, submitted that the Rent Control Act would be applicable as the suit premises were not in a "newly constructed building". He urged that for a proper interpretation, Section 3 (c) had to be construed to mean that those buildings which were completed after the amendment came into force would be exempt from the provisions of the Rent Control Act. He submits that had the building in which the suit premises were situate been constructed after the amendment which came into force in 1994, the exemption would be applicable. Shri Ramani placed reliance on the judgment in M/s. Punjab Tin Supply Co. , Chandigarh vs. Government and Ors. , AIR 1984 SC 87. He urged that it is necessary to consider the object of the amendment while interpreting the same. He submitted that the object of the amendment was that landlords would have an incentive for constructing buildings and would be able to avail of the exemption from the operation of the Rent Control Act for a period of fifteen years after the construction was completed. This amendment, according to the learned counsel would be applicable only prospectively and the owners of buildings constructed prior to the amendment, though less than fifteen years old, could not claim any exemption.