JANARDAN J SHINKRE Vs. RUKMINIBAI P SHET NAGWEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenges the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal dated 21-10-1991 in Eviction Appeal No. 22 of 1984 which has affirmed the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller, Panaji, dated 31-3-1984. In the said judgment passed in Case No. Rent/35/78, the Additional Rent Controller has allowed an eviction application filed by the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter called the respondent) and directed the petitioner to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent within a period of 45 days.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that he is the tenant in respect of premises belonging to the respondent which are situated at Rua de Ourem, Portais, Panaji, out of which three compartments of the building bearing Matriz No. 68 were leased to him by the late husband of the respondent Purxotoma alias Bhiku Nagwekar by deed dated 19th May, 1962. The lease was executed in the petitioners favour for establishing therein a printing press and for the office of the daily `pradip which he was publishing as its owner and editor. It is further the case of the petitioner that after taking the premises on rental basis he had purchased a printing machine and other allied machinery as well as the required furniture and started running his printing press. He had also established in the suit premises the office of his Marathi daily from where the newspaper was being printed and published everyday. He had even installed a telephone in the suit premises which still continues therein. Initially the petitioner has taken electricity connection in the premises and subsequently he took additional power connection to run the printing machine. When the machine was purchased the same was being operated on diesel but subsequently the petitioner made it to work on electricity. It was also stated that this original machine purchased in 1962 still continued in the suit premises although it was not used due to certain difficulty. After some time the petitioner took a loan from the Government and acquired an electric printing machine which was bigger in size. This was an imported Russian made machine and since then he started using that machine to print his daily and only on occasions the old machine which has been converted to be operated on electricity was made use of. However in the year 1971 the petitioner sold the Russian machine and continued using on regular basis the old converted diesel machine. On 12-10-78 the respondent filed eviction proceedings against the petitioner on the ground of non-occupancy of the premises. The petitioner filed his written statement wherein he has contended that the premises had been rented out to him for installing a printing press for the publication of his daily newspaper `pradip and also for the office of his daily printing. He denied that he had discontinued his business of printing press and publication of the daily or kept the suit premises closed for the last five years. He also pleaded that his machinery lies and continues in the suit premises.

(3.) BY judgment and order dated 31-3-1984 the Additional Rent Controller allowed the respondents application and ordered the petitioners eviction not only on the ground of non-user of the premises for a period of more than five years but also on the ground of damages caused to the premises. In appeal the Administrative Tribunal upheld the finding of the Addl. Rent Controller only in respect of non-user of the suit premises and affirmed the order of eviction by its impugned judgment dated 21st October, 1991.