CHANDRAMOHAN S MADKAIKAR Vs. MANOHAR ROGHUVIR BORKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE original respondent/landlord (since deceased) now represented by his widow, son and daughter had filed eviction proceedings before the Additional Rent Controller, Ponda against the present petitioner on the grounds contained in Section 22 (2) (a) (b) and (f) as well as Section 23 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the said Act ).

(2.) THE original respondent/landlord is owner of the building denominated 'durga Prasad' commonly known as 'borkar's House' at Tisk, Ponda, Goa and this building consists of six tenements. Two of the tenements are in the basement and four tenements are on the ground floor, Each tenement has two rooms, one independent balcony with independent entrance, one W. C. and one bathroom. One of the said tenements was leased to the present petitioner sometime in September, 1974. THE case of the original respondent is that the present petitioner fell in arrears of rent from June, 1985 to September, 1985; that the present petitioner ceased to occupy the said tenement which is now occupied by the father of the petitioner who is conducting his personal business in the suit premises. In view of the same, the original respondent terminated the tenancy of the present petitioner. THE respondent's case further is that he was employed in Bombay with M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation and has since retired from 1-9-1982; that the said building was constructed by him with the intention to settle down in Goa and the said tenements in the said building are so constructed that the same could be connected inter se to make one unit for the purpose of residence of the petitioner and his family. THE respondent thus sought eviction also on the ground of personal occupation. It was also averred that the original respondent did not own or possess any other building in the city of Ponda or anywhere in Goa.

(3.) THE learned Advocate Shri S. D. Lotlikar, appearing on behalf of the petitioner/tenant urged before me that the Notification upon which reliance has been placed by the original respondent, for claiming to be Central Government servant, declares the employees of Bharat Petroleum as Government servants only for the purpose of pay and for no other purpose; that the 1994 Amendment to clause (3) of Section 23a would not apply in the circumstances of this case and that even otherwise no certificate to the effect that the original respondent does not possess any other suitable residence in the local area where he or the members of his family can reside has been produced from the Head of the Public Sector undertaking. It was next urged by learned Advocate Shri Lotlikar, that the Administrative Tribunal did not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 3 (A) of Section 23a and more particularly relating to leave to defend.