JOAQUIM SABINO GOMES Vs. ELVIRA FRANCISCO DSOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had filed eviction proceedings against Datta Kalu Sricar (original respondent and now represented by his legal heirs ). THE grounds on which the said Application was filed are : (i)Non-payment of rent from February, 1974 to August, 1974; (ii)Shifting of residence from the suit premises and sub-letting the suit premises to sister Champa and (iii)Bonafide requirement for personal occupation. THE first ground relating to non-payment of rent was not pressed. THE Rent Controller in his judgment held that Champa and her husband were joint lessees of the suit premises. THE Rent Controller accepted the ground of bonafide personal occupation, but rejected the same on the ground of hardship to the tenant. THE petitioner challenged the said Order of the Rent Controller before the Administrative Tribunal. THE Administrative Tribunal in its judgment dated 12th March, 1991 held that the tenancy was jointly in favour of Datta, his brother, Champa and her husband and the ground of sub-tenancy was rejected. On the ground of bonafide personal need, the Tribunal also came to the conclusion that the petitioner had established his bonafide personal requirement, but rejected the application on the ground of hardship to the tenants. This Order has been challenged in this Writ Petition.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner is that the suit premises were let out to Datta Kalu Sricar by his father and that the said Datta Sricar sub-let the suit premises to his sister Champa and her husband. THE petitioner also sought eviction on the ground of bonafide personal requirement and, in this respect, it was submitted by him that he had a family consisting of 8 persons and, as such, the present accommodation was not sufficient as a result of which the other part of the building which is occupied by the respondents was required by him.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate Shri Kantak also argued before me in respect of the second ground relating to bonafide personal requirement, but I am of the view that if the first contention of learned Advocate Shri Kantak is rejected, then the question of bonafide personal requirement viz-a-vis Champa and Bhaskar would not arise, since they are not parties to these proceedings. LEARNED Advocate Shri Kantak stated before me that there was no need for the sub-tenants to be made party to the eviction proceedings in view of Section 51. Insofar as sub-tenant is concerned, learned Advocate Shri Kantak is perfectly right when he states that the sub-tenants need not be made party in the eviction proceedings and orders passed on the tenant are binding on the sub-tenant in view of Section 51. However, this contention would not, in any manner, help him once the ground of sub-letting is rejected, since, for the purpose of bonafide requirement, the tenant is required to be made party to the proceedings so that opportunity could be given to such party to defend the eviction on the ground of bonafide personal requirement and comparative hardship.