Material impairment of value or utility of premises justifies eviction under Section 22(2)(c) of the Act.

ORDER

1. The original tenant is before this Court challenging concurrent orders passed by the Rent Controller and the District Court, whereby eviction of the tenant is directed on the ground specified in Section 22(2)(c) of the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act.

2. The case of the respondents was that the petitioner/tenant had constructed a toilet (WC) in the veranda of the First floor of the premises let out by the respondents and that the tenant had further changed the internal plastering and flooring of the shop on the ground floor and that tiles were put in the open veranda, without the consent of the respondents. It was claimed that the filthy water from the WC accumulated and spread on the walls and windows of the building, giving a foul smell, thereby causing nuisance to the other occupants of the building and people in the neighbourhood.

3. According to the respondents, by indulging in such an act, the petitioner/tenant had invited order of eviction under Section 22(2)(c) of the aforesaid Act.

4. The aforesaid claims of the respondents were disputed by the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner denied that the respondents were his landlords and further pleaded that no new construction was undertaken and that repairs were carried out, which did not in any manner impair the value or utility of the building, thereby showing that the ground for eviction was not made out.

5. The rival parties led oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective claims. The Rent Controller took into consideration the material on record and held that ground for eviction was made out and accordingly passed the order of eviction against the petitioner.

6. Aggrieved by the said order of the Rent Controller, the petitioner filed appeal before the District Court. In the appeal, as many as eight points for determination were framed by the District Court. Findings were rendered in favour of the respondents and the appeal stood dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. The petitioner/tenant is represented before this Court through legal representatives.

7. Mr. J. P. Mulgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below failed to appreciate that the respondents could not be said to be the landlords as the property in question was not shown to be part of the partnership property. There was deficiency of pleadings in that regard. It was further submitted that the Courts below failed to appreciate that the evidence and material on record fell short of demonstrating that ground for eviction was made out under Section 22(2)(c) of the aforesaid Act. It was further submitted that the petitioner had specifically prayed for remanding the matter to the Rent Controller because of the fact that proper opportunity of advancing oral arguments was not granted to the petitioner. It was further submitted that the written notes of arguments filed before the Rent Controller were also not taken into consideration and that the District Court completely failed to appreciate that the parameters for seeking remand were clearly made out. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner placed heavy reliance upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Waryam Singh Vs. Baldev Singh, (2003)1 SCC 59; G. Reghunathan VS K. V. Varghese, (2005) 7 SCC 317; Vipin Kumar Vs Roshan Lal Anand 1993) 2 SCC 614 and judgment of this Court in the case of Rama Ben V. Zaveri and others Vs Meharoonisa Farooqui and others (Judgment and order dated 19.5.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 218 and 552 of 2015).

8. On the other hand, Mr. C. A. Coutinho, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that there was no substance in the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner. The material on record demonstrated that the cheques towards payment of rent and the other material on record clearly demonstrated that the petitioner himself had recognized the res