ANAND D MAHATME Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question which is involved in this writ petition is as to whether the authorised officer appointed under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the Act) can pass an order evicting a tenant from a building on the application of the landlord.

(2.) THE petitioner challenges in this writ petition an order passed by the Deputy Collector, Panaji Sub-Division, Panaji, Goa who was appointed as an Authorised Officer under the provisions of the Act whereby the eviction of the petitioner was ordered from the premises bearing Municipal No. E-2 (old) and House No. 5 (new) under Chalta No. 18 of P. T. Sheet No. 106 City Survey Panaji which is in the North half of the first floor of the building consisting of one verandah, one entrance, one drawing room, two rooms, bath room and kitchen. In the other portion of the building the respondent No. 3 is admittedly staying, who is the owner of the suit building.

(3.) THE short facts of the case is that the house in question was requisitioned by the Government under the provisions of section 6 of the Act and the same has been allotted to a Government servant the late Anand D. Mahatme who was serving in the Sale Tax Department in the Government of Goa vide Exh. A dated 14-12-1973. Shri Anand Mahatme retired from Government service in the year 1978 but he continued to stay in the premises paying rent to the third respondents father Shri Leandro Gonsalves. The said Leandro Gonsalves gifted the suit house to the third respondent by Gift Deed dated 25-11-1991. In the meantime Anand Mahatme died and his legal representatives, the petitioners, continued to occupy the house. After the death of Anand Mahatme, the landlord used to collect the rent from the petitioners. The fact of gifting away the suit house in favour of respondent No. 3, has been duly informed to the late father of the petitioner by letter dated 25-11-1991 (Exh. B colly. in this writ petition at page 23) and the receipts of having paid the rent issued by the respondent is at pages 25, 27 and 29 which go to show that the rent was being paid till January, 1992. All these facts make it clear that the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner are treating themselves as landlord and tenants respectively for all practical purposes. The respondent has then made an application to the Authorised Officer, respondent No. 2, purported to be under section 5 of the Act and requested the release of the building for his own use as the present premises where he now lives is not sufficient for the requirement of his family. During the pendency of the proceedings the Government of Goa also has been impleaded before the Authorised Officer in the proceedings. Notice has been issued by the Authorised Officer to the petitioners and the petitioners resisted the application. Ultimately the Authorised Officer passed an order (Exh. D) dated 7-4-1993 directing the petitioners to put the building in question in possession of the respondent. The order concludes thus :---