ELIZABETH BARRETO Vs. MILTON SEQUEIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this petition is the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, Daman and Diu (hereinafter called the Tribunal) dated 23rd May, 1990 in Eviction Appeal No. 28 of 1979 which has unsettled the judgment of the Rent Controller, Goa North Division, Panaji, dated 3-11-78 in Case No. RENT/64/74. By the said judgment the Rent Controller had dismissed an application for eviction filed by Milton Sequeira since deceased, who was the original applicant in the application for eviction, as a result whereof the judgment of the Tribunal had the effect of directing eviction of the petitioner from the suit premises.

(2.) THE admitted position is that the suit premises which was consisting of a residential house situated at Mapusa was leased to the petitioner by one Tamaturgo de Souza by a written lease somewhere in the year 1961. At the time of the execution of the lease Tamaturgo claimed to be the owner of the ground floor of the building, part of which was leased out by him to the petitioner. On 15-7-1974 the said Milton Sequeira filed an application for the petitioners eviction from the premises on the ground of personal occupation. The case of the said deceased Milton who is now represented by his legal representative the respondent Ida Sequeira as averred in his application is that he is owner and landlord of the ground floor of the building described in the Conservatoria Predial Bardez under No. 2798 and that part of the ground floor namely House No. E8/6 was in possession of the petitioner as a statutory tenant thereof. It was also stated that the petitioner was paying to him a monthly rent of Rs. 35/- in respect of the suit house. Since Milton was in Bombay all these years, the house was given on lease to the petitioner in the year 1961 by his brother-in-law Tamaturgo de Souza who was looking after the house and was his attorney in respect of his assets in Goa. Therefore and since he is retired from his job he has decided to leave Bombay and settle down in Mapusa. Since he had no premises of his own at Mapusa therefore he required the house for his personal occupation. The petitioner contested this application and although admitting that he was the tenant of one half of the ground floor of the suit house he denied that he was paying rent to Milton. Regarding the ownership of Milton he submitted that the petitioner knew about it only when the said Milton by his letter dated 6th June, 1974 written through his Advocate disclosed his title. Till then the respondent was always under the impression that the owner was Tamaturgo.

(3.) THE Rent Controller upon recording evidence dismissed the application of the said Milton which judgment was reversed by the Tribunal vide the impugned judgment under consideration.