CHANDRASHEKAR V. PATTANSHETTI Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS common order can conveniently dispose of both Writ Petitions which are inter se co-related and arise out of the same set of facts. Both the petitions essentially seek to challenge the ex parte judgment and order dated 24.7.1992 passed against one Shri Pradeep P. Mahatme in Case No. BIDG/ARC-V/6/92 filed by Smt. Laxmibai A. Wagle against the said Pradeep as well as the common judgment and order passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Eviction Appeals No. 46/93 and 50/93 filed by the petitioner in the Court of Additional Rent Controller, Vasco, although in Writ Petition No. 111 of 1994 there is also an additional challenge thrown out by the petitioner against the dismissal by the Additional Rent Controller of his application dated 18.10.1993 for his joinder as party-opponent No. 2 in the aforesaid Case No. BIDG/ARC-V/6/92. In Writ Petition No. 80 of 1994 it is prayed that the impugned judgments and orders dated 24.7.1992 and 31.1.1994 be quashed and set aside and the proceedings in Case NO. BIDG/ARC-V/6/92 be received and restored to the file of the Additional Rent Controller, the petitioner being joined as party-respondent so as to enable the Rent Controller to decide the same on merits in accordance with law. In Writ Petition No. 111 of 1994 a substantially identical prayer to this effect has also been advanced by the petitioner with regard to the same impugned orders.

(2.) THE petitioner's case is that by a lease deed executed in or about September, 1974 by Prabhakar v. S. Mahatme as lessor in favour of the petitioner as lessee, the petitioner was put in possession of the suit premises since 15.9.1974 on a monthly rent of Rs. 260/-. Thus the petitioner is in exclusively possession and occupation of the premises ever since that date. The rent was also being regularly paid and after the death of Prabhakar, his son Pradeep was receiving the stipulated rent from the petitioner. As such the petitioner was holding the premises as lawful, bonafide and contractual tenant of Prabhakar and there was no interference whatsoever all these years neither from the lessor's heirs and legal representative nor form any third party with regard to his tenancy rights. It was only since 1989-90 or thereabout that Pradeep chose to foist eviction proceedings against the petitioner vis-a-vis the suit premises.

(3.) WITH due regard, it is difficult to appreciate the submissions of the petitioner's learned Counsel which, in my view, are neither sound nor well- conceived and should not therefore be allowed to prevail.