JUDGMENT - Dr. E.S. DA SILVA, J.:---This second appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Addl. District Judge, Panaji, dated 16th December, 1987 in Regular Civil Appeal No.5 of 1986 whereby he affirmed the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge J.D., Mapusa dated 30-11-1985 in Civil Suit No. 128/84. That was a suit for declaration, title and permanent injunction filed by the respondent No.1 (hereinafter called the respondent) against the appellant and the late respondent No. 2/P ascoal Goes. It was partly decreed by the trial Court as a result of which the respondent was declared tenant of two rooms with a carpet area of 37 sq. metres in respect of a demolished building belonging to the appellant and entitled to possession of equal area in the new building erected in its place on rent to be determined as per the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the Act). An appeal filed by the appellant and the late respondent No.2 Pascoal was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge by judgment which is under challenge in this second appeal. The respondent claims to be a tenant of the ground floor consisting of a room of the building bearing No. M-8/16 belonging to the appellant and two rooms of another building bearing No. M-13/17 also belonging to her and situated at Mapusa. He claims that the tenancy was created somewhere in the year 1966 by one Pascoal Goes who according to him was managing these two buildings. It appears that Pascoal was the appellant's father. The tenancy was not for respondent's residence but for commercial use meant for recharging batteries. Admittedly there is no written instrument or lease executed between the respondent and the said Pascoal nor rent receipts were regularly issued by Pascoal to the said respondent. The respondent has pleaded that neither Pascoal nor the appellant gave him any receipt. However, he purported to produce two written documents being P.W. 1/A Colly, being one a writing which on one side there are some calculations made by the respondent admittedly in his own handwriting with regard to some rents in respect of "Goes House" while on the other side there is some acknowledgment with regard to the receipt of an amount of Rs. 170/- purportedly signed by Pascoal. The other documents consists of a letter dated 15-11-1972 which the respondent alleges to be a notice sent to him by Pascoal for his failure in timely paying the rents of the leased premises. From these documents the respondent wants the Court to infer the existence of a tenancy relationship between him and the appellant as evidence of a lease agreement entered into by Pascoal on behalf of the appellant with the said respondent. Later on and after the respondent returned from the Gulf where in he was living at the time the relationship was established by pascoal with the respondent the appellant-landlady demolished the premises i.e. both the buildings and it seems that in its place two new buildings came up. The respondent claims an equal area in the new buildings and the stand taken by the appellant is that the respondent is not at all her tenant and as such the question of giving him an equal area in the new construction does not arise.

2. The respondent therefore filed the aforesaid suit against pascoal and the appellant wherein he has prayed that he be declared tenant of the ground floor of the building No. M-8/16 and of the two rooms of the building No. M-13/17 and also a permanent injunction to restrain the appellant and Pascoal, their agents, etc. from commencing the construction of the new building in place of the old building. An additional prayer for compensation was also sought for by him. In his plaint the respondent has stated that Pascoal was managing the two houses for a number of years and in this capacity has leased the respective portion of the two houses to him about nine years back for a monthly total rent of Rs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document