The landlord must establish bonafide requirement for eviction and make a case for 'additional accommodation' under section 23(3) if occupying only a part of the residential building.

C.V. Bhadang, J.

By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner/landlord is challenging the judgment and order dated 28/6/2010 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Eviction Appeal No.85/2003. By the impugned judgment, the Administrative Tribunal, while allowing the appeal filed by the respondents, has set aside the order of eviction passed in favour of the petitioner in respect of the suit premises.

2. The brief facts are that, the entire house (of which the suit premises are a part) was gifted to the petitioner by his parents in the year 1971. That now deceased, Mahendra Jayantilal Tanna was inducted as a tenant in respect of the suit premises by the petitioner under a Lease Deed dated 1/6/1974. The father of the petitioner expired in the year 1983, while his mother expired on 17/8/1988. It appears that the parents of the petitioner were staying in the remaining portion of the said house. It is undisputed that the petitioner is presently staying in a flat at Pajifond, Margao which is belonging to his brother. The case made out by the petitioner was that after the death of his father, he approached the deceased tenant requesting him to vacate the suit premises as the petitioner was in need of the tenanted premises for his bonafide personal occupation. The tenant did not vacate and therefore the petitioner was required to shift his mother to his residence at Pajifond, Margao. It appears that an offer of alternate premises was also given to the deceased tenant which he refused to accept. The petitioner issued two notices i.e. 1/5/1985 and 14/12/1987 inter alia alleging that the original tenant had changed the user and also constructed a ramp near the staircase and claiming that he was in need of the suit premises for his bonafide personal occupation.

It appears that in the notice dated 1/5/1985 the petitioner stipulated that in the event the tenant did not vacate by May 1986, the rent would be increased to Rs. 500/- per month. Be that as it may, the tenant gave a reply to the notice dated 6/1/1985 and as he failed to vacate the suit premises, the petitioner filed an application for eviction before the Rent Controller on 12/2/1988 on two grounds namely, under section 23(1)(a)(i) and section 22 (2) (c) of the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (Act, for short).

3. Before the Rent Controller, the petitioner examined himself along with one Peter Gomes, (AW2) and Santosh Kale (AW3). The son of the original tenant examined himself along with one Manish Mulraj Tanna. The learned Rent Controller refused to accept the case of the petitioner that there was any construction of any slope/ramp done by the tenant in the middle of the steps and thus the ground as based on section 22 (2)(c) of the Act was negated. However, in so far as the ground of bonafide requirement is concerned, the Rent Controller came to the conclusion that the petitioner had established that his need was bonafide and genuine, inasmuch as the petitioner was required to stay at Pajifond, Margao in a flat which was belonging to his brother. The Rent Controller has noticed a submission purportedly made on behalf of the tenant to the effect that one Mr. Mascarnehas was inducted by the petitioner as a tenant in a part of building, much after the induction of the deceased tenant and if at all there was to be an eviction, Mascarenhas has to go first on the basis of the principles of last came, first go. The Rent Controller has refused to accept the said submission which was purportedly advanced on behalf of the respondents. In the result the Rent Controller allowed the application by an order dated 19/3/2003, directing the tenant to vacate the suit premises within a period of three months. Feeling aggrieved the original tenant approached the Administrative Tribunal in Eviction Appeal No.85/2003.

4. The Tribunal has not interfered with the order refusing to grant an order of eviction under section 22(2) (c) on the