YESHWANT NONO NAIK Vs. JOAO MENINO FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present Petition, the Petitioners are challenging the Judgment and Order dated 14th April, 1997, passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Eviction Appeal No. 24/93. By the impugned Judgment, the Tribunal has set aside the Judgment and Order dated 22nd July, 1993, passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Ponda, in Case No. BLDG/21/91 and has allowed the application filed by the Respondent No. 1 under Section 23(A)(3) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 hereinafter called 'the said Act'.

(2.) THE facts in brief relevant for the decisions are that the Respondent No. 1 herein is the landlord in respect of a house bearing No. 372 comprising of two portions, and situated in the property of the Respondent No. 1 at Savoi Verem within the taluka of Ponda. Some time in the year 1960, the predecessor of the Petitioners herein by name Yeshwant Nono Naik was leased a portion of the said house for a period of eleven months for the purpose of running tea and coffee and sweet stall therein. After the expiry of the said lease period, the lease was being renewed from time to time. The lease was for commercial purposes and the leased premises consist of two rooms with a verandah on the front side and a structure with thatched roof on the rear side. The rear side structure having thatched roof forms the kitchen of the said premises. The Respondent No. 1, the landlord of the house, was employed in Police Department and on account of his service exigencies, had been residing at Quarter No. 55 of Monte Pio, Altinho, Panaji. The Respondent No. 1 was to retire on attaining superannuation age on 31st October, 1990. It is the case of the Respondent No. 1 that since 1988 he had been informing the Petitioners predecessor that the premises let out to the Petitioners would be required for personal occupation of the Respondent No. 1 on his retirement. A legal notice calling the Petitioners predecessor to vacate the premises was served by the Respondent No. 1 on 8th May, 1989 and thereafter on account of failure to comply with the said notice, the Respondent No. 1 filed the Eviction Proceeding being Case No. BLDG/21/91. It is to be noted that before filing the said proceeding, the Respondent No. 1 had filed another proceedings some time in October, 1990. However, the same were withdrawn in August, 1991. The present proceeding was initiated on 6th September, 1991. It is also not in dispute that the Respondent No. 1 actually retired from service on 22nd January, 1991.

(3.) AT this stage, it is also necessary to note that the Respondent No. 1 had filed one more proceedings for eviction of the Petitioners predecessor being BLDG/20/91 under Section 22(2)(b)(ii) of the said Act on account of change of user of the premises. The said application was allowed by the Rent Controller, which order was sought to be challenged by the Petitioners before the Administrative Tribunal. However, the same was also dismissed by the impugned Order. The Petitioners have filed a separate Petition in that regard and is being dealt with separately.