LAWS(BOM)-1998-3-13

CHANDRAMOHAN S MADKAIKAR Vs. MANOHAR ROGHUVIR BORKAR

Decided On March 07, 1998
CHANDRAMOHAN S.MADKAIKAR Appellant
V/S
MANOHAR ROGHUVIR BORKAR (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH HIS LEGAL HEIRS Respondents

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 Borkars 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 petitioners. The respondents 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 present petitioner contested the eviction proceedings and the Additional Rent Controller, Ponda, vide judgment dated 28th June, 1989 dismissed the eviction application filed by the original respondent. The Addl. Rent Controller had framed issues on the grounds urged in the eviction application, namely, that the present petitioner was in arrears of rent; that the present petitioner ceased to occupy the said tenement; that the present petitioner had transferred his right under the lease or sub-let the said tenement to his father and the same was being used for the purpose other than for which it was leased and that the petitioner ceased to occupy the said tenement. An issue had also been framed in respect of personal and bona fide occupation of the respondent. The Addl. Rent Controller after assessment of the evidence led before him, rejected the eviction sought for on all grounds. It may also be mentioned here, after hearing of the final arguments on 3-5-89, the original respondent had filed an application on 10-5-89 seeking amendment of the eviction application by adding the ground for eviction under section 23-A which had been incorporated in the said Act by way of amendment dated 24-12-87. This application for amendment was rejected by the Addl. Rent Controller. The Addl. Rent Controller found that the original respondent was already in occupation of one tenement consisting of two rooms, W. C. , bathroom, separate balcony and separate entrance and two other such tenements were available for his occupation at any time, as revealed by him in the course of his evidence. The said two tenements were leased to one Shri Narvekar and one Shri Talaulikar who, according to the deposition of the original respondent, were ready to vacate the same at any time. On this basis, it was held by the Addl. Rent Controller that the said three tenements were sufficient for the occupation of the original respondent and his family. The Addl. Rent Controller also came to the conclusion that in the circumstances greater hardship shall result to the present petitioner if eviction was ordered as he had no alternate accommodation of his own.