ANALIA ABREU PINTI Vs. OLINDA DE MENEZES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS letters patent appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 122 of 1989. The learned Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant and confirmed the decree for eviction passed by the Administrative Tribunal on the ground of sub-letting under section 22 (2) (b) (i) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings ( (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 ("act", for short ). Before the learned Single Judge, three contentions were urged, namely (i) the alleged sub-tenant Estevam Rodrigues was inducted in part of the premises at the behest of the respondent-landlady herself and, therefore, there is a deemed consent for sub-letting; (ii) there was no sub-letting or parting of possession by the appellant in favour of Estevam Rodrigues; and (iii) there has been complete acquiescence on the part of the landlady inasmuch as she waited till 1982 to institute proceedings though Estevam was in occupation from 1973.

(2.) THE learned Single Judge rejected the aforesaid contentions and ordered eviction. Now these contentions are vehemently re-agitated before us by Mr. Nadkarni, learned Counsel for the appellant, by placing reliance on certain Supreme Court judgments. Before we deal with the submissions of Mr. Nadkarni, it is necessary to give a brief factual background of the case. The respondent-landlady filed proceedings for eviction of the appellant in the Court of Rent Controller, North Division, Panaji, on several grounds. However, it is the common case that only ground urged and pressed was the ground under section 22 (2) (b) (i) of the Act for sub-letting part of the premises to one Estevam Rodrigues. In answer to the charge of sub-letting, the appellant stated that the said Estevam Rodrigues was a good friend of the respondent-landlady and it was the respondent herself, who requested the appellant to permit Estevam Rodrigues and his family to occupy a part of the premises. The appellant further stated that she allowed Estevam Rodrigues to occupy a room and a kitchen with a specific understanding that he would stay in that part for some time until he gets some other accommodation on hire. The appellant maintained that the said Estevam Rodrigues is not paying anything to her and in fact, his presence has become nuisance to the appellant. The appellant also alleged that in any event, the said Estevam Rodrigues is in the premises from the year 1973 admittedly and, therefore, the consent of the landlady is presumed to have been granted. In these circumstances, the appellant averred that there is no sub-letting as alleged and consequently, there is no contravention of Clauses (3) and (5) of the lease-deed.

(3.) THE Rent Controller dismissed the respondents application by an order dated April 26, 1985 on a finding that it is the landlady, who must have inducted Estevam Rodrigues in a part of the premises let out to the tenant. The Controller accepted the appellants version that Estevam Rodrigues was inducted on a specific request made by the respondent. The Controller also held that the fact that the respondent had accepted the rent from 1977 till 1981 knowing full well that Estevam Rodrigues was also staying in the premises, proves beyond any shadow of doubt that Estevam Rodrigues has been inducted by the respondent herself.