ADELINA FERNANDES Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PANAJI GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is a tenant and she was ordered to be evicted by the Deputy Collector and Additional Controller, from the premises bearing House No. DMC-9-55, at main road, Nani Daman, which belongs to the respondents Nos. 3 to 11. Respondents Nos. 3 to 11 sought eviction of the petitioner on the ground of bona fide requirements under section 23 read with section 25 of the Goa, Daman and Diu, Rent Control Act. By its order dated 12-11-1992, the Deputy Collector ordered eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner took the matter in appeal in the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, Daman and Diu as Eviction Appeal No. 43/92. The Administrative Tribunal, by its Judgment dated 30-11-1995, also dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. It is in this context that the petitioner approached this Court by way of this writ petition to challenge the orders of the Deputy Collector and Additional Controller and the Administrative Tribunal.

(2.) THE above proceedings were originated on a notice issued by and on behalf of Mr. Joseph Fernandes, Luise Fernandes, Thomas Fernandes and Armino Fernandes. Admittedly, the house bearing No. DMC-9-55 at main road, Nani Daman jointly owned by these four brothers. It is also not disputed that these four brothers were employed outside Daman and residing outside Daman. On 7-4-1984, a notice has been issued to the petitioner by the aforesaid 4 brothers jointly stating that the premises, in question, is required for them, i. e. their brother Shri Luise Fernandes who has retired in 1983. It is also stated that the present accommodation at Bandra where he was staying is insufficient and difficult for all other purposes to stay at Bandra, as a retired person. The Eviction Case No. 2/85, as stated above, has thereafter been filed before the Deputy Collector and Additional Rent Controller by these four brothers. After the order of the Additional Rent Controller, when the appeal was pending before the Administrative Tribunal, applicant No. 1 Luise Fernandes and applicant No. 4, Mr. Armino Fernandes died.

(3.) ONE of the objections raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Thali, in this context, is that the petition ought to have been dismissed by the Appellate Court on the ground that as the bona fide requirement stated in the notice and also in the eviction proceedings before the Lower Court is no more in existence. I do not find much merit in this contention. As pointed out earlier, the house in question, is belonging to the applicants. It is averred in the petition that applicants Nos. 2 and 3 are due for retirement and also wanted to pass their retired life at Daman and they also require the house for their occupation. Therefore, the contention of Shri Thali, Counsel for the petitioner that no cause of action survives as applicant Nos. 1 and 4 have expired, cannot be accepted. This line of argument could have been perhaps relevant, if the L. Rs. of the deceased landlord are joined in the petition and prosecuted the petitioner for eviction, which is based on bona fide requirements. But, as I pointed out earlier, it is a joint case, filed by four brothers, who are placed more or less in a similar situation and who wanted to come down to Daman at their native place and reside on their retirements, in the house in question, it cannot be said that the cause of action is ceased to exist as far as remaining applicants are concerned. Therefore, the objection raised by the Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Thali is only to be overruled.