DATTA BANDEKAR Vs. MENINO J A C BARRETO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is tenant of the premises belonging to one original landlord/respondent no.1 who is now represented by legal heirs. THE original landlord had filed eviction proceedings against the appellant before the Rent Controller on three grounds, namely : (i) Non-payment of rent from April, 1984 till the filing of the eviction application on 29th January, 1985; (ii) THE appellant has not occupied the suit premises from April, 1984; and (iii) bonafide personal requirement of the suit premises for original landlord's son who was to get married.

(2.) THE Addl. Rent Controller had come to the conclusion that the original landlord had failed to prove any of the three grounds on which eviction was sought and, as such, he dismissed the eviction application. THE original landlord approached the Administrative Tribunal in appeal and the Administrative Tribunal reversed the findings of the Addl. Rent Controller on all the three grounds and ordered the eviction of the appellant. THE appellant approached this Court in writ jurisdiction and the learned Single Judge vide judgment dated 14th October, 1996, which is impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal, upheld the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal on two courts namely non-deposit of costs as required under Section 22(3) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the said Act) and that the appellant had failed to occupy the suit premises for a continuous period of four months without reasonable cause which is a ground for eviction under Section 22(2)(f) of the said Act. However, on the question of bonafide personal requirement, the findings of the Administrative Tribunal were set aside as it was found that the tribunal had chosen to disturb the findings of the Addl. rent Controller without giving any reason. THE original landlord has filed cross objections in respect of dismissal of eviction application on the ground of personal bonafide requirement of landlord's son after his marriage.

(3.) ON the second ground of eviction it was pointed out by him that the landlord had failed to establish by any cogent evidence that the appellant had failed to occupy the suit premises for a continuous period of four months; that the appellant had in his evidence categorically stated that he continued to occupy the suit premises and all his belongings remained in the suit premises during the said period. He, therefore, submits that what is important is animus poscedendi and the appellant was not only in possession of the suit premises but that he had animus poscedendi to possess the same even if it is found that the appellant was not actually occupying the suit premises.