Back
2002 Supreme(Bom) 525
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(PANAJI BENCH)
V.C. Daga, J.
Nirmala Kashinath Rau others .... Appellants.
Versus
Ratan Vassudev Dhempe (Late) Vassudev Dhempe others.... Respondents.
Second Appeal No. 29 of 1996, decided on 14-6-2002.
Advocates appeared :
V.K. Bodke, for appellants.
Mrs. A.A. Agni, for respondents.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of section 59(2) of the Goa Rent Control Act, which provides protection for benefits of the eviction decree passed under the repealed law.
Headnote:
Rent Control Act - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Section 59 of the Goa Rent Control Act, 1968 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the eviction of tenants from a house in Goa. The original plaintiff allowed a licensee to use a portion of the house, but after the licensee's death, the defendants continued to occupy the house without paying rent. The trial court decreed the suit for eviction, but the defendants appealed, arguing that the suit was not maintainable due to the extension of the Goa Rent Control Act to the area.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the suit was filed under the provisions of Decree No. 43525 and not under the Transfer of Property Act. It held that the lower Appellate Court was wrong in holding that the suit would be governed by the Goa Rent Control Act and not by Decree No. 43525. The court quashed the lower Appellate Court's judgment and remitted the proceedings back for decision on merits.
Issues: The main issue was whether the lower Appellate Court was justified in holding that the decree passed by the trial Court stood vitiated on account of the extension of the provisions of the Goa Rent Control Act to the entire State of Goa, including the village wherein the suit building is situated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the suit was filed under the provisions of Decree No. 43525 and not under the Transfer of Property Act. It interpreted section 59(2) of the Goa Rent Control Act to provide protection for benefits of the eviction decree passed under the repealed law.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower Appellate Court's judgment, and remitted the proceedings back for decision on merits in accordance with the law.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
2. The factual background of the case can be stated quite shortly.
3. The original plaintiff, late Shri Dattatraya Walaulikar vide agreement dated 2-8-1971 had allowed one Vasudeo Dhempe to use western half portion of the house situated in Village of Nerul, Bardez, Goa on monthly payment of Rs. 25/- for a period of 36 months on the leave and licence basis.
4. The original licensee, said Shri Vasudeo Dhempe left for heavenly abode on 2-7-1972. The present defendants continued to use and occupy the said house as his heirs and successors. The defendants did not pay the licence fee to the plaintiff since the date of death of said Vasudeo. Inspite of the expiry of the agreement on 1-8-1974, the defendants continued to occupy the said house. They did not vacate the same. The plaintiffs, therefore, by notice dated 10-1-1980 terminated the tenancy of the defendants and called upon them to vacate the said house on or about 2-2-1980. However, the defendants neither vacated the suit house, nor any amount towards the use and occupation charges was paid by them, which compelled the plaintiff to file suit for possession with consequential reliefs.
5. On being summoned, the defendants appeared and filed their written statement and contended therein that the suit house was taken on lease for residential purpose as well as for commercial purpose to carry on business in the said premises. The defendants claimed to have constructed two rooms with the consent of the original plaintiff by spending amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The defendants denied that they were in arrears of rent. In short, according to the defendants, the plaintiff was not entitled to claim vacant possession of the suit house or arrears of rent. It appears that during pendency of the suit, original plaintiff also left for heavenly abode and came to be substituted by his legal representatives, who are, hereinafter, referred to as "plaintiff" for short.
6. The trial Court, relevant to the pleadings, framed relevant issues and tried suit on merits. Trials Court was pleased to decree the suit with costs and directed the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the suit house within 90 days from the date of judgment and decree and further directed payment of R. 1,500/- towards arrears of rent for five years and mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month from 2-2-1980 till vacant possession is delivered.
7. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the present respondents, the original defendants preferred an appeal before the Additional District Court, Mapusa being Regular Civil Appeal No. 64/90. The same was heard by the learned Additional District Judge, Mapusa, who was pleased to hold that on account of change in law to the extent it benefits the tenants, the suit was not maintainable. He relied upon the provisions of section 59 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent Eviction) Control Act, 1968 ("the Goa Rent Control Act" for short) while allowing appeal and dismissed suit on the preliminary issue without considering the merits of the matter.
8. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Mapusa present second appeal is preferred by the appellants (original plaintiffs). This appeal throws up an interesting question of some potential general significance in relation to the law of the Goa Rent Control Act; in particular to the extent of applicability of the said Act to the pending suits; on the date on which it was extended to the entire remaini
