SUSHILABAI DANTYE Vs. GANPAT KUDTARKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal was admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

(2.) THE undisputed facts which are relevant for the decision are that the respondent herein who is the owner in possession leased out the house in question to one Ramnath Mangesh Dantye, who was the husband of the appellant No. 1 and the lease deeds were registered from time to time and last such lease deed is dated 17-10-1974 for a period of three years. The said period of lease expired on 16th October, 1977, and consequently, the agreement of lease came to an end on 16-10-1977. However, though the lease was not renewed, the late Ramnath Mangesh Dantye, continued to occupy the house in question along with the appellants herein as the statutory tenant in respect of the suit house. The said Ramnath expired on 7-12-1977, leaving behind the appellants herein who continued to occupy the suit house after his death. The respondent herein thereupon filed a suit for eviction of the appellants on the ground that the statutory tenancy in favour of Ramnath Dantye came to an end on his death on 7-12-1977, and that the statutory tenancy being not heritable, the appellants were mere trespassers, having no right, title or interest of any kind to continue to occupy the suit house. The claim of the respondent was contested by the appellants on various grounds, including the ground of lack of jurisdiction to the Civil Court to entertain the suit for eviction of the appellants, they being the lawful heirs of the statutory tenant and that such tenancy is heritable. It was contended that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to evict the tenant from a building/premises in terms of the provisions contained in Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1967 (hereinafter called as "the said Act" ). The trial Court, upon hearing the parties, partly decreed the suit directing the appellants to vacate the suit house, simultaneously holding that the late Ramnath Dantye was a statutory tenant and that such tenancy was not heritable. The appeal preferred against the said judgment was dismissed by the lower Appellate Court confirming the findings of the trial Court, while holding that the statutory tenancy in favour of Ramnath came to an end after his death and, therefore, the appellants were the trespassers.

(3.) THE suit which was filed by the respondent in the trial Court was registered as Regular Civil Suit No. 31/1978. The appeal preferred against the decree of the trial Court by the appellants herein was registered as Regular Civil Appeal No. 1/92. The trial Courts decree is dated 27-11-1991, whereas, that of the lower Appellate Court is dated 16-9-1995.