KRISHNA SHETYE Vs. JUSTIN ACACIO D SOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner takes exception to the Judgment and Order dated 13. 4. 1998 passed in Eviction Appealno. 33/93 by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Judgment and Order dated 30. 8. 1993 passed by the Additional Rent Controller at Mapusa in Rent Case No. Rent/arc/54/84 allowing the application dated 24. 5. 1984 for eviction of the original petitioner. During the pendency of this petition, the original tenant expired and his legal representative has been brought on record. Similarly, the respondent No. 1, the original landlord also expired during the pendency of this petition and his legal representative has been brought on record.

(2.) The original applicant Justino Acacio D Souza had filed an application for eviction of his tenant/opponent Shrikrishna Shetye in respect of the premises bearing House No. E-6-105, situated at Ansabhat Mapusa, Bardez, Goa which was leased to him on a monthly rent of Rs. 100/ -. The eviction was sought on two grounds, namely, subletting of the premises and the applicant s requirement of the premises for his personal occupation. The application was contested by the opponent and in the course of inquiry, the applicant examined two witnesses, including himself and the opponent examined three witnesses, including himself. The Addl. Rent Controller, after appreciating the evidence led by the parties, held against the applicant-landlord in respect of sub-letting, but in respect of requirement for the personal occupation, gave finding in favour of the applicant and ordered eviction of the opponent. In the appeal preferred by the opponent, the judgment passed by the Rent Controller was confirmed. By the present petition, the petitioner challenges both the Judgments and Orders passed against him.

(3.) Mr. Mulgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/opponent submitted that both, the Rent Controller as well as the Administrative Tribunal have committed jurisdictional error by not appreciating the fact that the original respondent had not established the ingredients of Section 23 (1) (a) (i) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (the Act, for short). He submitted that in order to succeed under Section 23 (1) (a) (i) of the Act, the landlord has to establish that he wants to settle down in the premises in respect of which the eviction is sought. The learned Counsel further submitted that there must be some element of permanency of residence when eviction is sought under Section 23 (1) (a) (i) of the Act. According to the learned Counsel, both the Administrative Tribunal as well as the Rent Controller have given a finding that the premises were required for occupation of the original applicant as and when he comes down to Goa and that too occasionally. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgments and Orders are liable to be set aside inasmuch as there is an error of law apparent on the face of the record which justifies interference of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court. In support of his submissions, he relied upon the following Judgments: (1) Mst. Jagir Kaur and anr. v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1963 SC 1521; (2) Smt. Jeewanti Pandey v. Kishan Chandra Pandey, (1981) 4 SCC 517 (3) Rahabhar Productions Pvt. Ltd. v. Rajendra K. Tandon, (1998) 4 SCC 49; and (4) Pratap Rai Tanwani and anr. , v. Uttam Chand and anr. , (2004) 8 SCC 490.