The main legal point established in the judgment is that a tenant's application seeking direction on rent payment, based on a notice from a third party claiming to be the landlady, does not necessarily constitute a denial of the landlady's title and may be bonafide, especially when the tenant has continuously paid rent to the landlady.

JUDGMENT

Bharati H. Dangre, J. - The present Writ Petition, filed by the petitioner/tenant since deceased, through his legal representatives assail the judgment and order passed in the Rent Appeal no.7/2013 passed by the District Judge-I, Panaji on 11.04.2019. The said judgment, set aside the order passed by the Addl. Rent Controller and Dy. Collector of North Goa, Panaji in Rent/ARC/N/1/91 dismissing the application for eviction filed by the respondent, on the ground of denial of her title.

2. In order to appreciate the correctness of the impugned judgment, it would be necessary to delve into the background by running through the proceedings instituted by the respective parties.

3. The dispute revolves around house bearing No. 38/A situated in Corte De Oiteiro at Panaji Goa. The owner of the said house is one Antonio Neri Francisco Fernandes. The said house was leased out to Chintamona Boirov Moralkar by executing Lease Deed on 17.09.1952. The said Lease Deed was subjected to renewal from time to time and on 17.09.1959 it was renewed. The tenant Chintamona, expired and the present petitioner Mr. Naneshwar Maralkar stepped into his shoes and continued as tenant of the premises. The petitioner continued to pay the rent to the land owner till he breathed his last in 1976. The rent thereafter came to be paid to Esmeraldo Rego Fernandes, widow of Antonio, the respondent no.1, who is also represented in the petition through her legal heirs, on her demise. The tenant continued to pay the rent for almost 15 years without any default every month.

4. In the year 1985, the landlady filed proceedings for eviction against her tenant on the ground that the wife of the petitioner was allotted Municipal quarters and the entire family had shifted to the said place and after moving to the new premises, he had sub-let the tenanted premises. I am not concerned with the said proceedings but only for completing of the narration, the above fact has been mentioned.

5. On 14.03.1986, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, Goa by instituting case No. Rent/24/1986, seeking to conduct an inquiry as to whom the applicant should consider as landlady and pay the rent and further praying that pending the said inquiry, he should be allowed to deposit the rent due from the month of July, 1985 before the Hon'ble Court. In the said application the applicant admitted his tenancy and also admitted that he was paying rent to Esmeraldo Rego Fernandes, who is the landlady. He alleged that from the month of July, 1985 to February, 1986, rent was tendered by money order since there was a refusal to pass any receipts by the landlady, but, even the money orders were refused. The application state that he received a registered A/D letter on 18.02.1986 from one Ms. Maria Bevinda Severina Dias Costa @ Amelia Dias through her power of attorney holder stating that she is the landlady in respect of the premises occupied by the applicant and he should stop making payment of rent to Ms. Fernandes and the rent of the premises rented out should be paid to her. The applicant therefore, expressed difficulty as to whom he should pay the rent and in the light of the said facts, prayed for deposit of the rent in the Court.

6. The said application filed by the petitioner was allowed by the Addl. Deputy Collector, Authorised Officer and Rent Controller by his judgment dated 30.07.2003 and by the said order, the applicant was directed to pay rent to Ms. Maria Bevinda Severina Dias and she was directed to pass rent receipts. The said judgment was passed on the basis of an order passed by the inquiry officer whereby the claim of Ms. Maria in regards to the property and residential house has been confirmed and she was held to be the owner and possessor of the said property, holding that Ms. Maria Dias had a clear title as owner of the land. She was held to be "landlady" of the premises and was held to be entitled to the rent from the tenant.

7. The respondent Ms. Esmeraldo