MOHAN NARAYAN NAIK Vs. AMALIA FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been filed against the judgment dated 18th August, 1992, passed in Eviction Appeal No. 2/90 by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, Daman and Diu. By the said judgment, the Tribunal has confirmed the order of the Additional Rent Controller dated 6th October, 1989, passed in BLDG. Case No. 102/78.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 Shri Joao Vincent Fernandes moved an application under section 22 (2) (a) (b) (ii) of Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, for eviction of the petitioner Shri Mohan Narayan Naik and his brother Shri Vishnu Narayan Naik from Room No. 4 of a building belonging to the applicant Joao Vincent Fernandes. The case of the original applicant in the application was that Shri Mohan Narayan Naik was his tenant paying monthly rent of Rs. 100/ -. It was the case of the applicant that Shri Mohan Narayan Naik had been allotted premises by the Mormugao Port Trust and had shifted but had sub-let the premises to Shri Vishnu Narayan Naik his brother, who was opponent No. 2. The opponents filed their reply and pointed out that the lease was created in favour of Vishnu Naik who was the elder brother and not in favour of the opponent No. 1. It was further contended that the original applicant was demanding additional rent at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month instead of Rs. 100/- per month.

(3.) DURING the course of the proceedings and within the time stipulated under section 22 (3) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, the rents were deposited and consequently the ground of eviction for non-payment of rent was rejected by the Additional Rent Controller. The Additional Rent Controller on the evidence however, arrived at the conclusion that Shri Mohan Narayan Naik was the tenant and that the applicant had been able to establish that Mohan Narayan Naik the tenant had sub-let the premises to Shri Vishnu Narayan Naik, his brother. The said finding of the Additional Rent Controller was sustained by the Tribunal by its judgment dated 18th August, 1992.