GOA GROUPS VOCATIONAL Vs. MATCHES GOA PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point for consideration which arises in this present petition is whether the user of part of the premises as dormitory for trainees, while the premises also continue to be used for housing training classes for which the premises were in fact let out, would amount to change in user of the leased premises warranting eviction of the tenant under Section 22 (2) (b) (ii) of the Rent Act in force in the State.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the decision in the matter are that by Lease Deed dated 3rd September 1974 the suit premises were leased to the petitioner by the respondent no. 1 for a period of 3 years commencing from 16th August 1974 on monthly rent of Rs. 3/- per sq. metre. THE suit premises comprised of 3 blocks, namely, Block nos. 8, 4 and 5 (3) having a carpet area of 142. 41 sq. metres, 281. 80 sq. metre a and 178. 80 sq. metres respectively totalling to an area of 603. 01 sq. metres. THE lease was for the purpose of housing therein the Goa Group Vocational Training Centre Classes. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has been imparting training to mine workers in different courses like refresher courses, basic courses and special courses and the duration of these courses is from 1 to 3 days for a refresher course and 5 to 6 days for special course. It is further the case of the petitioner that since the trainees come from various parts of Goa and outside Goa, it was felt necessary to arrange for sleeping arrangements for the benefit of such trainees and they were allowed to stay in a part of the suit premises during the said period.

(3.) SHRI S. D. Lotlikar, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent no. 1, on the other hand, submitted that undisputedly the term 'building' has been used in the Rent Act for various provisions and having different connotations. Drawing my attention to Clause (d) of Section 22 (2) of the Rent Act he submitted that the term 'building' therein certainly need not refer to the leased premises and can relate to the portion of the building other than the building leased out to the tenant. So also according to SHRI Lotlikar the term 'building' in Section 22 (2) (b) (ii) cannot be construed in relation to the term 'building' used in sub-clause (i) of the said Section. He further submitted that the petitioner cannot derive any assistance from the use of the words 'any portion thereof' found in sub-clause (i) to interpret the word 'building' in sub-clause (ii) as relating to the entire leased area. According to SHRI Lotlikar, the reference to 'any portion thereof' in sub-clause (i) is absolutely necessary in view of the use of the word 'entire building' in the first part of the said clause. Otherwise the ground for eviction for transfer of right would have been restricted to the entire building alone and any mischief played by the tenant regarding the transfer of right in any part of the building would not have been a ground for eviction of the tenant. Referring to the facts of the case SHRI Lotlikar submitted that the fact finding authority has given a finding as regards the use of the premises and has clearly arrived at the finding that a portion of the leased building is being used as the dormitory by the petitioner and being so, this case is fully covered by a decision of this Court in the matter of SHRI Ramchandra M. Kamat v. SHRI Damodar Ramchandra Mashelkar and two others, reported in 1989 (l) G. L. T. 161. He further submitted that use of a portion of the leased premises as dormitory cannot be said to be a purpose ancillary to the purpose for which the premises were let. Drawing my attention to clause 1 of the lease agreement, SHRI Lotlikar submitted that the lease was specifically granted for the purpose of housing therein the Goa Group Vocational Training Centre and as such it cannot be presumed to have included therein the use for dormitory of any portion thereof even for the trainees or the students who may be attending the classes. According to SHRI Lotlikar, it is not a compelling necessity for the petitioner to use the premises or any part thereof as a dormitory. In order that a purpose becomes ancillary, it has to be intermittently connected to the main purpose and the use for dormitory is not intermittently connected for the purpose of holding the classes for which the premises were leased out to the petitioner. SHRI Lotlikar sought to rely upon the decision in the matter of Dashrath Baburao Sangale and others v. Kashinath Bhaskar Data, reported in A. I. R. 1993 S. C. 2646.