Right to sue in tenancy possession suit survives to sole heir married daughter upon plaintiff tenant's death; eligibility under rent Act definition requiring living with as family member determined at trial, not interlocutory stage.

ORDER :

AMIT S. JAMSANDEKAR, J.

1. By the present Civil Revision Application, the Applicants have challenged the order dated 4th July 2025, passed by the Learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Panaji in Regular Civil Suit No. 100/2022 (F).

2. After hearing the parties, the Learned Judge has allowed the Application filed by the Respondent to bring the legal representative of the deceased Plaintiff on record. The Learned Judge has followed the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Mahesh Bandekar & Another Vs. Vivek Marathe & Others, (2019) 20 SCC 728. The Learned Judge has held that, ‘Whether such relief can be granted to such heir or not can be dealt with at the time merit.’

3. The main contention of the Applicants is that a married daughter residing separately cannot inherit tenancy rights under the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (the Act). Therefore, there is no right to sue in favour of the Respondent (the original Plaintiff’s daughter). The submission of the Applicants is that the suit was filed by the mother of the Respondent, and there is no statement in the plaint that the Respondent was residing with her mother. On that basis, it is submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the provisions of the Act and consequently, the provisions of Order XII Rule 1 and 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. This submission is made by citing the Judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puran Singh & Others Vs. State of Punjab & Others, (1996) 2 SCC 205. Mr. Gaonkar submitted that the impugned order is contrary to the law laid down by this Court in Francisco Joaquim Mesquita Vs. Laxmibai Pandurang Kamat , Writ Petition No. 258 of 2011 vide Order dated 12.06.2018. Further, the impugned order is contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gian Devi Anand Vs. Jeevan Kumar & Others, (1985) 2 SCC 683. It is further submitted on behalf of the Applicants that the judgment relied upon by the Respondent in Uma Bandekar (supra), is in respect of inventory proceedings and therefore ought not to have been applied by the Learned Judge in the Civil Suit under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

4. Mr. Monteiro on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Uma Bandekar (supra) is binding on the Learned Judge as well as this Court. The position of law is well settled. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the Learned Judge in consonance with the well-settled principles of law. In any case, it is submitted that the issue involves a mixed question of law and fact.

5. I have heard the rival submissions and have perused the record.

6. It is an admitted position that the original Plaintiff, the mother of the Respondent, was declared as a tenant of the structure in dispute vide the Judgment and Order dated 11th November 2010 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 534/2000/B (New). Therefore, the tenancy of the Respondent’s mother is not in dispute.

7. The suit against the Applicants was filed on 16.09.2022 under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, by the original Plaintiff during her lifetime. The suit was instituted by the Respondent in the capacity as constituted attorney of the original Plaintiff. The original Plaintiff passed away on 18^th September 2024. The Respondent, being the sole surviving legal heir of the original Plaintiff, filed an Applicatio