GURUDAS NARAYAN SALGAONKAR Vs. AVDUTA SAVLARAM ARAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have taken exception to the order dated 03/01/2014 passed by the Appellate Board in Rent Appeal No.22 of 2013 invoking the jurisdiction of this Court of superintendence in terms of Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It was the case of the petitioners that the learned Appellate Board had allowed the appeal filed by the respondents against the order dated 30/07/2003 passed by the Deputy Collector and Rent Controller whereby he had dismissed the application filed by the respondent under Section 22a and b (i) and (ii) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, Act for short hereinafter. Briefly, the respondent had filed the case for eviction against the original respondent Gurudas under the provisions of the said Act claiming to be the owner of the room on the ground floor of the building situated at Dada Vaidya Road being the suit premises for brevity's sake herein. The suit premises were leased out to the said Gurudas on monthly rent for the purpose of using the same as a motor work shop/garage. The said Gurudas was irregular in payment of rent and therefore the respondent was constrained to file an eviction case against him before the Rent Controller praying for his eviction. On being served with the notice, the said Gurudas deposited the arrears of the rent from June 1982 till July, 1987 apart from the costs and accordingly the said proceedings were dropped in terms of law.

(2.) The said Gurudas again failed and neglected to pay the rent constraining the respondent to initiate proceedings for his eviction not only on the ground of non-payment of rent but also for unauthorisedly and without the consent of the landlord having sublet the suit premises to some other person. The said Gurudas had taken a plea in his written statement that there was no written lease as mandatorily required in terms of Section 34 of the Act and insofar as the arrears of rent was concerned, he took a plea that the respondent had not issued receipts towards the payment of rent as required by law. The learned Deputy Collector and Rent Controller had however dismissed the eviction case giving rise to an appeal at the instance of the respondent under Section 45 of the Act which was subsequently transferred to the District Court being the Appellate Board. The Appellate Board took into consideration the Written submissions filed by the parties before the Administrative Tribunal and without giving an opportunity to advance arguments proceeded to decide the appeal and allowed the same holding that the petitioners being the legal heirs of the said Gurudas were liable to be evicted on the ground of arrears of rent giving rise to the present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Heard Shri S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the petitioners who contended at the outset that an important issue arose for determination whether in the absence of the written agreement of lease, the Rent Controller would have jurisdiction to deal with the eviction proceedings, a written lease agreement being mandatory to exercise jurisdiction and as otherwise a remedy was available to the landlord before the Civil Court. He adverted to Section 34 of the Act to contend that the lease Deed was mandatory since the Act had already come into force by the time the Lease Agreement came to be entered into. He referred to Section 21 of the Act providing such protection to the tenants coupled with the proviso and submitted that the Act provided for the eviction of tenants before the Civil Court in terms of the proviso to Section 21. He placed reliance in Ankush Wadkar v/s. Shri Shaik Nuha Shaikh (Writ Petition No.213/1986) where the issue of Section 34 and its applicability to proceedings before the Rent Controller fell for consideration before the High Court and a clear finding was rendered that in the absence of the written lease agreement there was no jurisdiction in the Rent Controller and the execution of the lease Deed was mandatory in terms of Section 34 of the Act.