The amended definition of 'tenant' in the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 did not extend the benefits of tenancy rights to heirs of lessees in cases of commercial or industrial leases.

Headnote:
LEASE - HERITABILITY - RENT CONTROL ACT - MESNE PROFITS - CALCULATION - TRESPASSER.
Fact of the Case:

The original lease agreement was entered into on 10th July, 1946, under the Decree No. 43,525, which allowed heritability of tenancy rights for commercial or industrial purposes. After the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 came into force, the definition of 'tenant' was amended to include surviving family members of a deceased tenant. The appellants, heirs of the original lessee, claimed tenancy rights under the amended definition, while the respondents, the owners of the property, sought eviction.
Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the amended definition of 'tenant' in the Rent Control Act did not extend the benefits of tenancy rights to heirs of lessees in cases of commercial or industrial leases. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Sihinde, which held that statutory tenancy rights under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, were not transferable to heirs in cases of commercial or industrial leases. The Court also rejected the appellants' argument that the mesne profits should be calculated at the rate of the rent payable under the Rent Control Act, holding that mesne profits are a compensation for wrongful occupation and should be based on the profits received or receivable by the person in wrongful possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the amended definition of 'tenant' in the Rent Control Act extended the benefits of tenancy rights to heirs of lessees in cases of commercial or industrial leases? 2. Whether the mesne profits should be calculated at the rate of the rent payable under the Rent Control Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The amended definition of 'tenant' in the Rent Control Act did not extend the benefits of tenancy rights to heirs of lessees in cases of commercial or industrial leases. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Sihinde, which held that statutory tenancy rights under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, were not transferable to heirs in cases of commercial or industrial leases. The Court reasoned that the purpose of the amendment was to protect family members of deceased tenants from eviction, and that there was no indication that the legislature intended to extend tenancy rights to heirs in cases of commercial or industrial leases. 2. Mesne profits are a compensation for wrongful occupation and should be based on the profits received or receivable by the person in wrongful possession. The Court rejected the appellants' argument that the mesne profits should be calculated at the rate of the rent payable under the Rent Control Act, holding that this would not reflect the actual profits received or receivable by the appellants.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the cross-objections were also dismissed.

JUGGMENT - COUTO G.F., J.: - This second civil appeal by the original defendant in the suit was initially admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether a lease created for commercial purposes under the provisions of the Decree No. 43,525 dated 7th March, 1961 continues to be heritable under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. However, at the hearing of the appeal, another question was also allowed in respect as to whether the mesne profits can be fixed in excess of the rent which would be payable for the rented premises under the provisions of the Rent Control Act.

2. The respondent had filed a suit for eviction against the appellants on the grounds, that they are the owners of a house situated at - Panaji and that by an agreement dated 10th July, 1946, their predecessors in title had given the said house on lease to one Domingeos Pedro Xavier Fernandez, late husband of the appellant no. 1 and father of the appellant no. 2. The rented premises consisted of fifteen compartments on the first floor and two on the ground floor of the said building and had been rented for the purpose of running a hotel. The said original lease agreement was renewed from time to time till the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction Control Act, 1968 came into force, and thereafter, the said Domingos became a statutory tenant of the premises. He came to die on 12th July, 1978, leaving behind the appellants nos. 1 and 2 and others as his heirs and legal representatives. According to the plaintiffs/respondents, herein, the appellants entered into possession of the rented premises, after the death of the said domingos, though they had no right to occupy it, as the lease was for non-residential purposes. The occupation of the premises by them is, therefore, illegal and they are mere trespassers. The respondents, therefore, filed the suit praying that the appellants be ordered to vacate the rented premises and to give possession thereof to the plaintiffs/respondents. They further prayed that the appellants be ordered to pay them mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of their illegal occupation till vacant possession of the premises is given to the plaintiffs/respondents.

3. The suit was resisted by the appellants on the ground that they were living with the deceased. Domingos as members of his family, and as such, they had inherited the tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises. In additional, the appellants submitted that the plaintiffs had refused to accept the rents sent to them by money order and that, in any event, the civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case because under the provisions of the said Act, only the Rent Controller is vested with jurisdiction to order the eviction of tenant.

4. The learned trial Judge, by his order dated 10th October, 1980 held that the appellants were mere trespassers in occupation of the suit premises since the tenancy rights had not been inherited by them. And by an Addendum dated 17th February, 1982, the learned trial Judge allowed the suit and ordered the eviction of the appellants from the suit premises and further, that they should pay mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from 13th July, 1978 till the date of the filing of the suit and to pay further mesne profits from the date of the institution of the suit till vacant possession of the premises is given to the respondents and now at the rate of Rs. 1,275/- per month.

5. The appellants, being aggrieved, preferred an appeal to the District Court, Panaji. In the said Court, the respondents raised a preliminary question according to which the appeal was not maintainable since the main and substantial question in issue had been decided by the learned trial Judge by his order dated 10th October, 1980 and the appellants had chosen not to react against it. Therefore, according to the respondents, the appeal was not at all maint

Click Here to Read the rest of this document