The purpose for which a building is let out is the test laid down in the law for determining the nature of a building and for classifying it as residential or non-residential.

Headnote:
LANDLORD-TENANT - EVICTION - BONA FIDE REQUIREMENT - RESIDENTIAL BUILDING - COMMERCIAL USE - INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS - WRIT JURISDICTION - SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioners, owners of a house property, sought to evict the first respondent, a commercial tenant, from the rented premises on the ground of bona fide requirement for their residence. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction application, but the Administrative Tribunal quashed the order on the ground that the provision of section 23(3) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (the Act) did not apply to non-residential buildings.
Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the definition of "building" in section 2(e) of the Act, which includes any building or part of a building let out separately for commercial use, must be read in conjunction with section 23(3), which allows a landlord to seek possession of a residential building if he requires additional accommodation for his own use or for the use of any member of his family. The Court found that the purpose for which a building is let out is the test laid down in the law for determining the nature of a building and for classifying it as residential or non-residential.
Issues: 1. Whether the definition of "building" in section 2(e) of the Act can be read in conjunction with section 23(3) to allow a landlord to seek possession of a non-residential building for bona fide requirement? 2. Whether the purpose for which a building is let out is the test for determining the nature of a building as residential or non-residential?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the definition of "building" in section 2(e) of the Act must be read in conjunction with section 23(3) in order to give effect to the purpose of the Act, which is to protect the rights of both landlords and tenants. The Court found that the definition of "building" in section 2(e) is not absolute but is subject to contextual limitations, and that in the context of section 23(3), the word "building" should be construed to include the integrated larger building as a whole, rather than the part thereof demised to a particular tenant alone. 2. The Court held that the purpose for which a building is let out is the test laid down in the law for determining the nature of a building and for classifying it as residential or non-residential. The Court found that in the present case, the building in question was let out for commercial purposes, and therefore, it was a non-residential building. As such, the petitioners were not entitled to seek possession of the rented premises under section 23(3) of the Act.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed, and the order of the Administrative Tribunal quashing the eviction order was upheld.

JUDGMENT - Dr. G.F. COUTO, J.:---This writ petition gives rise to an interesting question of law, namely whether a landlord can get vacant possession of the premises let out by him for commercial purposes on the ground of its bona fide requirement for his residence.

2. The petitioners are the owners of a house property situated at Patte Ribandar. The said property belonged to the parents of the first, second, fourth, fifth and seventh petitioners and one Custodia, Rodrigues who is another brother of the petitioners. The said Rodrigues filed a civil suit for division of the said property in the Court of the Civil Judge, (Senior Division) Panaji and the said house property was divided in the said suit. A portion of the said house laying to the South was allotted to the said Rodrigues and the remaining portion was allotted to the petitioners. By a lease agreement dated 4th January, 1957, a part of the said building was let out by the petitioners and Custodia Rodrigues to the first respondent for the purpose of carrying on commercial activity, particularly, to run a grocery shop. The said lease agreement was renewed on or about 11th February, 1966 and it was mentioned, at the time, that the period of lease was for six years beginning from 5th January, 1966. Thereafter, there was no renewal, but respondent No. 1 continued to occupy the rented premises as a statutory tenant. Then in the month of July, 1977, the petitioners and Custodio Rodrigues gave an Advocate's notice to the first respondent asking him the evict the rented premises on the ground that not only he was in arrears of rent for a period of 2½ years but also that the said premises were required by the petitioners and Custodia Rodrigues for their bona fide personal occupation and for bona fide use as additional accommodation. Then, respondent No. 1 moved an application under section 18 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the Rent Controller, Goa North Division, Panaji, Respondent No. 1 was permitted to deposit the arrears of the rent by the Rent Controller and he has continued to deposit the monthly rent in the proceedings. The petitioners are residing in a part of the said house continues to the rented premises, and the part occupied by them consists of one room serving as a hall, two other rooms which are utilised as bedrooms and a kitchen-cum-dining room. One aunt of the petitioners is residing with them, the total of number of persons occupying the said portion being ten persons. The said portion of the house is not as such sufficient for the residential needs of the petitioners and therefore, on account of paucity of accommodation, petitioner No. 2 is residing with his in-laws in a different place at Ribandar. He desires to come back to the house belonging to him and his brothers. The rented premises are sufficiently large and if added to the portion occupied by petitioners, will give enough accommodation to satisfy the matters needs. The petitioners, therefore, filed a civil suit in the Court of the Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Panaji, for eviction of the first respondent from the rented premises on the ground of personal occupation. Resisting this suit, the first respondent raised the question that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction since it was the Court of the Rent Controller which could exercise under the Act the power of eviction. A preliminary issue was framed and by his judgement and order dated 13-1-1983, the learned Civil Judge, Panaji, dismissed the suit. After this judgment of dismissal of the suit, the petitioners filed a rent eviction application before the Rent Controller, Goa North Division, Panaji, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, seeking eviction of the first respondent from the rented premises on the ground of bona fide requirement thereof for personal occupation under section 23 of the Act. The first respondent resisted this application, m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis