AGOSTINHO JOAQUIM Vs. PREMANAND GAJANAN NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Respondents had filed an Application under Section 33 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called 'the said Act') on the ground that the suit premises which was leased to them by the petitioners required immediate repairs. THE estimate for repairs is stated to be to the tune of Rs. 2,04,150/ -. THE facts leading to the filing of this Application may be briefly stated for better appreciation of the controversy involved in this Writ Petition: By Lease Deed dated 23-3-1974, late Smt. Efigina Noronha leased to M/s Goa Winery & Distillery Pvt. Ltd. Co. a plot of land along with the house situated in the demised premises for a period of 5 years. THE Respondents continued to occupy the suit premises after the expiry of the said lease period and on 19-1-1990, the suit house caught fire and was partially damaged. THE parties blamed each other for the said fire being the handicraft of the other party. THE Respondents sent notice dated 12-2-1990 to Smt. Efigina Noronha for carrying out necessary repairs, but no action was taken. In the meantime, on 4-9-1990 the said Efigina Noronha expired. She had already filed a Civil Suit, being Special Civil Suit No.40/1990/b claiming damages to the tune of Rs. 4,30,000/- as a result of damages suffered due to fire. THE Respondents sent another notice dated 19-4-1991 to the Petitioners asking them to carry out necessary repairs, but since nothing was done, the Respondents filed Application under Section 33 of the said Act on 30th April 1991. THE Rent Controller inspected the suit premises and found that to some extent the suit house was in a very dilapidated condition and required immediate repairs in the absence of which the entire structure was likely to collapse. Though the Respondents had sought permission to carry out various repairs as shown at items Nos. a) to g) in para 11 of the Application, as an interim measure, the Rent Controller permitted the Respondents to replace the roof of the house with Mangalore tiles, wood rafters, battens, expenses of which were to be borne by the Respondents. THE Rent Controller specifically pointed out in this Order dated 30 April 1992 that the said interim relief was granted without prejudice to any right or claim of the landlord in pursuing the remedies before the various authorities and the permission of replacement of roof shall not bestow on the tenant any right whatsoever.

(2.) THIS Order was challenged before the Administrative Tribunal and vide Judgment dated 15th June 1992, the Revision filed by the Petitioners was dismissed. The Petitioners impugn the said Order of the Administrative Tribunal in this Petition.

(3.) THE next bone of contention between the parties is whether interim relief granted by the Rent Controller is in the nature of repairs or re-construction. We shall restrict ourselves to examine the matter with reference to the interim order granting permission to replace the roof of the house with Mangalore tiles, wooden rafters, battens. THE question, therefore, will be whether this permission would amount to repair or re-construction.