SUMATI NAIK Vs. DILIP FATARPEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE points for determination which arise in the present petition are:--

(2.) THE facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the respondent No. 1 herein filed an application for eviction of the petitioner on the ground that the father of the respondent No. 1 had leased out two rooms of the house bearing No. 23 situated in Ward No. 9 at Tisk, Ponda and that the petitioner had defaulted in the payment of rent since May, 1981 and that inspite of the notice served upon the petitioner, no payments were made in relation to the arrears as required under the law. The claim of the respondents was sought to be disputed by the petitioner on the ground that she was the mundkar of Fabrica to whom the property in which the house existed belonged and that she had never paid any rent to the respondent No. 1. The petitioner denied the case of the respondent No. 1 regarding the petitioner being the tenant of the respondent No. 1. Therefore, the matter was proceeded under section 21 of the said Act and on account of denial of title, the petitioner was called to establish the bona fide of his denial by leading necessary evidence prior to the evidence of the respondent No. 1. The petitioner examined herself and two more witnesses namely Satyawan Gaude and Silverio Gracias whereas the respondent No. 1 examined himself and one witness by name Shrirang S. Dongrekar. The Rent Controller by his Order dated 28th February, 1990 held that the denial of title of respondent No. 1 as landlord of the premises by the petitioner was not bona fide and, therefore, by exercising powers under section 22 (2) (g) of the said Act, ordered the eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the Order before the Administrative Tribunal in Eviction Appeal No. 12/90. However, the Appeal was dismissed by the impugned order dated 1st June, 1995.

(3.) SHRI S. D. Lotlikar, learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing the impugned judgment as well as that of the Rent Controller submitted that both the authorities below have adopted wrong approach in the matter while considering the matter in controversy and have analysed the materials on record assuming that the burden of proving the denial of title to be bona fide was upon the petitioner without considering and totally overlooking the basic requirement of law which required the respondent No. 1/landlord to establish the existence of relationship of tenant-landlord between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 before considering the aspect of denial of title of landlordship of the respondent No. 1. Drawing my attention to the provisions contained in section 22 (1) of the said Act, he submitted that in cases where a proceeding for eviction of the tenant is filed in Court of Rent Controller under the provisions of the said Act, it is necessary for a landlord to establish prima facie that there exists relationship of the landlord and tenant between the applicant and the opponent and only then the Rent Controller assumes jurisdiction to entertain the application and to look into the grievance of the landlord regarding the claim against the opponent for seeking his eviction and unless such relationship is prima facie disclosed and established, there cannot be a question of holding any enquiry or concluding the denial of the title of landlordship of the applicant by the opponent to be not bona fide. Taking me through the judgments of the Rent Controller and the Administrative Tribunal, the learned Advocate submitted that neither of the lower Authorities has held that the materials on record in any manner disclosed existence of relationship between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1 as that of landlord and tenant. In that regard, he also drew my attention to the depositions of the parties and the witnesses recorded before the Rent Controller which according to learned Advocate clearly disclose total absence of relationship of tenant and landlord between the petitioner and the respondent No. 1. He sought to rely upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the matter of (Dr. R. G. Ranbir Singh v. Asharfi Lal), reported in 1995 (6) S. C. C. 580.