OSE M NUNES Vs. SUBHASH S KALANGUTKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE eviction of deceased appellant Jose Nunes now represented by his legal heir Diogo Nunes and of appellant Ramakant Vithu Naik was sought by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground of damages, nuisance and sub-letting under section 22 (2) (b), (c) and (d) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control, Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the said Act ). The respondent Nos. 1 and 2, who are owners of the suit premises, had leased the suit premises to deceased Jose Nunes, who is alleged to have sub-let the suit premises to appellant Ramakant Vithu Naik. The Rent Controller vide judgment dated 20th November, 1992 ordered the eviction of the appellants on the ground of sub-letting alone. The appeal filed by the appellants before the Administrative Tribunal was dismissed vide Judgment dated 15th March, 1995. The appellants then filed writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. This is how the appellants have filed the Letters Patent Appeal in question.

(2.) LEARNED Advocate Shri F. E. Noronha, appearing on behalf of the appellants, has made before us three submissions, namely:-

(3.) IN respect of the first submission relating to limitation, it is urged by learned Advocate for the appellants that the application for eviction is required to be filed within one year of the cause of action and in the instant case the cause of action is stated to have arisen on 24th September, 1980 when the appellants had entered into partnership for the purpose of carrying on business in the suit premises and the application for eviction was filed only in the year 1982, that is to say, beyond a period of one year. In order to bring home his point that the limitation for filing an application for eviction is one year it was urged by learned Advocate for the appellants that section 58 of the said Act empowers the Administrator to make rules in respect of the procedure to be followed and the powers that may be exercised by the Controller, Rent Tribunal, Appellate Board and Administrative Tribunal in the performance of their functions under the Act. In pursuance of the said power to make rules, Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1969 (hereinafter called the said Rules) were framed. Rule 9 (2) provides that in all inquiries and proceedings commenced on presentation of an application under sub-rule (1) or under any other provisions of the Act or the Rules, the Controller or the Rent Tribunal shall exercise the same powers as the Mamlatdar under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdars Court Act, 1966 and shall follow the provisions of the said Act as if the Controller or the Rent Tribunal were a Mamlatdar Court under the said Act and the application presented was a plaint under section 7 of the said Act. Section 4 (3) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdars Court Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as Mamlatdars Court Act) provides that no suit shall be entertained by a Mamlatdar Court unless it is brought within one year from the date on which the cause of action arose.