ULHAS MAHABALESHWAR KHOLKAR Vs. MARIA BEATRIZ COELHO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners/tenants who are the legal heirs of the original tenant Mahableshwar Ramchandra Colcar have challenged the Judgment and Order dated 24th December, 1998 passed by the President of the Administrative Tribunal at Goa whereby he confirmed the order passed by the Addl. Rent Controller on 16th January, 1995 in which an order of eviction came to be passed against the tenant on the application made by the original landlord Abilio Coelho Pereira. The respondents No.1 to 7 are the legal heirs of the original landlord. For the sake of brevity and convenience they are being referred as landlord and tenant respectively for the purpose of disposing of this petition.

(2.) IN a nutshell, the facts which are not in dispute can be summed up as under :- The original landlord leased the premises to the original tenant on 10.1.1959 on the ground floor of the building situated at Panaji on a monthly rent of Rs.75/-. After some years, another shop was leased in exchange to the original premises for the same amount and in the same building on the ground floor. Subsequently rent was enhanced to Rs.80/- p.m. and then Rs.100/- p.m.. On 18.8.1977 the original tenant entered into a partnership under the name and style of M/s. Mandovi Tours & Travels for the purpose of conducting business in the said premises, himself as partner and one of his sons and daughter-in-law as the other two partners and a family friend one Mrs. Kunda Jagdish Wagh who retired from the partnership from 6th November, 1983. It is also not disputed that the original tenant was earlier doing the business of grocery in the suit premises and thereafter started the business of Tours & Travels by forming the aforesaid partnership. Taking exception to this, the original landlord filed an application in the Court of Rent Controller, North Division, Goa for seeking eviction of the original tenant on the ground that the petitioner/tenant transferred/sub-let to M/s Mandovi Tours & Travels a partnership concern the tenancy interest in the premises let out to the petitioner and the said transfer/sub-letting has been done without the permission or consent of the respondent and that the said transfer/sub-lease is exclusively running the business in the rented premises and that the petitioner is not having the grocery shop in the said room and this is sufficient ground for eviction and therefore the petitioners be evicted from the said room.

(3.) ON the other hand the petitioner took the plea that it is neither a transfer or sub-letting and therefore permission or consent of the respondent, does not arise, though change in the nature of business and constitution of partnership firm was duly informed to the landlord who gave his consent.