Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT GOA
M.S. Sonak, J.
Maria Martinha Menezes - Appellant
Versus
Sonny Correia - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 675 of 2009
Decided On : 18-02-2021
Undertaking - Tenancy Dispute - Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 - Section 54 - Section 30 - Section 30 - Section 54
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, claiming to be tenants of a building, sought restraint on demolition and penalties under Section 54 of the Rent Act. The Rent Controller granted injunction, which was vacated based on the respondents' undertaking to restore possession in the reconstructed building if the petitioners were established as tenants. The Rent Controller later found the petitioners to be tenants and ordered restoration of possession. The Administrative Tribunal reversed this decision, leading to the present petition.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondents attempted to wriggle out of their commitments made before the Rent Controller and this court, based on hyper-technical issues that did not even arise. The court held that the Tribunal's reasons for reversing the Rent Controller's decision were untenable and that the pleadings before the Rent Controller should have been construed liberally.
Issues: The issues included the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, the power to order restoration of possession, and the sufficiency of the pleadings before the Rent Controller.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Tribunal's decision was based on technicalities that did not arise in the case, and that the respondents were attempting to renege on their commitments. The court also emphasized that the pleadings before the Rent Controller should have been construed liberally.
Final Decision: The impugned judgment and order dated 30.04.2009 made by the Administrative Tribunal was quashed and set aside. The Eviction Appeal No.44/1998 was restored to the file of the Principal District and Sessions Judge, South Goa at Margao for disposal on its own merits and in accordance with law.
JUDGMENT
M S Sonak, J. - Heard Mr. Nitin Sardessai, learned Senior Advocate with Mr. K. Sabnis for the Petitioner and Mr. S. S. Kakodkar learned counsel for the Respondents No.3 and 8.
2. The challenge in this petition is to the judgment and order dated 30.04.2009 made by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa in Eviction Appeal No.44/1998 setting aside the judgment and order dated 09.01.1998 made by the Additional Rent Controller-IV, Margao in case No.BLDG/13/ARC-I/95.
3. The matter has a checkered history. However, it would suffice to refer to the following:
(a) The petitioners claim to be the tenants in respect of premises in the building bearing No.E-82 at Margao (suit premises) owned by the respondents paying a monthly rent of Rs. 200/-;
(b) Apprehending that the respondents or their predecessors in title might demolish the building in which the suit premises were located, the petitioners vide application dated 03.05.1980 filed before the Rent Controller applied for restraint on demolition and also urged that the penalties in terms of Section 54 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (Rent Act) be imposed upon the respondents;
(c) On 24.10.1980 the Rent Controller injuncted the respondents from proceeding with the demolition or reconstruction. The Rent Controller observed that such a restraint is necessary until the respondents give an undertaking that they would, in the reconstructed premises, continue the tenancy of the petitioners to the proportionate extent;
(d) The matter was carried by the respondents before the Judicial Commissioner. By order dated 31.10.1980, the Judicial Commissioner declined a stay on the order dated 24.10.1980 but liberty was granted to the respondents to move the Rent Controller for vacating the injunction upon furnishing the necessary undertaking;
(e) The respondents filed an application cum undertaking on 01.11.1980 before the Rent Controller, undertaking therein to hand over the possession of the premises in the reconstructed building, should the petitioners succeed in establishing that they are indeed the tenants in respect of the suit premises;
(f) The Rent Controller, even without notice to the petitioners, suspended/ vacated the injunction order upon taking on record the undertaking of the respondents;
(g) The Petitioners instituted a Revision Application No.23/1980 against the Rent Controller's order vacating the injunction ex-parte. By order dated 15.05.1981, the Administrative Tribunal allowed the petitioners' revision petition but dismissed two revision applications instituted by the respondents challenging some aspects of the Rent Controller's order that benefitted the petitioners;
(h) The respondents petitioned this Court vide Special Civil Application (Writ Petition) No.90/B/81 challenging the common order dated 15.05.1981 made by the Administrative Tribunal;
(i) By judgment and order dated 04.08.1983, this Court, allowed the respondents' writ petition and set aside the Tribunal's judgment and order dated 15.05.1981, by taking cognizance of the undertaking given by the respondents that in the event the petitioners establish that they are the tenants in respect of the suit premises, possession of the proportionate area in the reconstructed building will be restored to them. A detailed reference will be made to this order dated 04.08.1983 in the course of this judgment and order;
(j) The Rent Controller on 05.08.1986 dismissed the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the respondents. The respondents appealed to the Tribunal once again. The Tribunal, this time, vide order dated 06.06.1989, set aside the Rent Controller's order dated 05.08.1986 and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller with the direction to hold an inquiry into the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. This order was not carried further by either the petitioners or the respondents and therefore attained finality;
(k) Ultimately, after inquiry, the Rent Cont
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
