1983 Supreme(Bom) 22

Bombay High Court
G.F.COUTO
Eknath Kira Akhadkar - Appellant
Versus
Administrative Tribunal - Respondent
Decided On : 01/27/1983

1. Retrospective operation of statutory provisions - General rule of prospective operation - Exceptions - Clear and unambiguous intention of the legislature required for retrospective effect - Vested rights affected by retrospective operation. 2. Landlord and tenant - Eviction for non-payment of rent - Amendment of law introducing requirement of notice and failure to pay or tender arrears within 30 days - Prospective operation - Vested rights of landlords not affected. 3. Interpretation of statutes - Proviso and main provision - Operation in mutually exclusive spheres - Proviso applying to defaults established without reasonable cause - Main provision applying to defaults occurring during pendency of proceedings.

Headnote:

Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 - Amendment Act, 1976 - Retrospective effect - Amendment of S.22(2)(a) - Requirement of notice and failure to pay or tender arrears of rent within 30 days - Prospective operation - Vested right of landlord to seek eviction - Retrospective operation of sub-section (3) of S.22 - Unreasonable - Proviso to S.22(2) - Satisfaction of Controller regarding default not without reasonable cause - Conditions precedent - S.32 - Applicability - Default occurring pending proceedings - Concurrent findings of Rent Controller and Administrative Tribunal - Interference in writ jurisdiction - Scope.

Fact of the Case:

Eight writ petitions challenging eviction orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal, dismissing appeals filed by the petitioners against orders of eviction made by the Rent Controller under S.22(2)(a) or S.32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (the Act).

Finding of the Court:

1. The amendment of S.22(2)(a) of the Act, introducing the requirement of notice and failure to pay or tender arrears of rent within 30 days, is prospective in operation and does not affect vested rights of landlords to seek eviction for non-payment of rent. 2. Sub-section (3) of S.22, providing for no eviction order on payment or deposit of arrears within 30 days of service of summons, is also prospective in operation. 3. The proviso to S.22(2) operates only when the tenant's default is established and is not without reasonable cause, while S.32 applies to cases where the tenant intends to contest the proceedings. 4. Concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Administrative Tribunal on issues of fact, such as the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship or the reasonableness of a cause for default in rent payment, will not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction.

Issues: 1. Whether the amendment of S.22(2)(a) of the Act has retrospective effect, affecting vested rights of landlords to seek eviction for non-payment of rent. 2. Whether sub-section (3) of S.22, providing for no eviction order on payment or deposit of arrears within 30 days of service of summons, has retrospective effect. 3. Whether the proviso to S.22(2) and S.32 of the Act operate in mutually exclusive spheres, with the proviso applying to defaults established without reasonable cause and S.32 applying to defaults occurring during the pendency of proceedings. 4. Whether concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Administrative Tribunal on issues of fact can be challenged in writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Retrospective operation of a statutory provision can be inferred even in cases where such retrospective operation appears to be clearly implicit in the provision construed in the context where it occurs. However, in the absence of express provision or clear implication, statutes are generally construed to be prospective in operation, especially when vested rights are affected. 2. The amendment of S.22(2)(a) of the Act, by introducing the requirement of notice and failure to pay or tender arrears of rent within 30 days, modifies the right of landlords to seek eviction for non-payment of rent and subjects it to a new condition. Since the amendment does not expressly provide for retrospective operation and its language does not clearly and unambiguously imply such an intendment, it is construed as prospective in operation. 3. Sub-section (3) of S.22, providing for no eviction order on payment or deposit of arrears within 30 days of service of summons, is necessarily prospective in operation, as its retrospective application would be impracticable considering the time frame prescribed. 4. The proviso to S.22(2) operates only when the tenant's default is established, either by admission or otherwise, and is not without reasonable cause. S.32, on the other hand, comes into play when the tenant intends to contest the proceedings, either because the default is not admitted or because the tenant is unable to summarily satisfy the Controller that the default was not without reasonable cause. 5. Concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and the Administrative Tribunal on issues of fact, such as the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship or the reasonableness of a cause for default in rent payment, will not be interfered with in writ jurisdiction, as the Court is not sitting in appeal or revision.

Final Decision: 1. The writ petitions, except Writ Petition No. 64/B/77, are dismissed with costs. 2. The Rule issued in Petition No. 64/B/77 is made absolute in terms of prayer (a), with costs to respondent 1. 3. The execution of the eviction orders in all petitions is stayed for a period of fifteen days from the date of the order.