22002244::BBHHCC--GGOOAA::11888844 Suchitra IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO.724/2024 (F)

SHRI. JOSEPH FERNANDES, H. No. 175/30-2A Shantinagar, Ponda. C/o. Casa Menino Bar &

…

APPELLANT Restaurant, Margao, Salcete - Goa Versus

1. M/S. V. K. KAMAT & CO.

Rep. by its Managing Partner Shri. Vaikunta Kristraya Kamat Opposite Municipal Garden, Margao.

2. SHRI SHRIDHAR V. KAMAT r/o H. No. 23/1, 8th Main, 3rd Block, Jayanagar, Bangalore, Karnataka - 560041

9423889707 shridkam@yahoo.com

3. SHRI. INACIO FERNANDES Menino House, Shanti Nagar, Ponda - Goa, 403410.

(Deceased and iled through legal)

3A. Sandra Fernandes (Wife)

(address same as above)

3B. Shawn Fernandes (Son)

(address same as above)

3C. Sherwin Fernandes (Son)

…

RESPONDENTS (address same as above) 3A-3C Shri Nitin Sardessai, Senior Advocate with Shri Kabir Sabnis, Shri S. Sardessai, Shri Siddharth Nunes, Shri T. Rebello and Shri Shivam Fadte, Advocates for the Appellant.

Shri S. D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate with Shri Terence Sequeira and Ms Sailee Kenny, Advocates for the Respondents.

CORAM: M. S. KARNIK, J.

Reserved on: 30^th AUGUST 2024 Pronounced on: 05^th SEPTEMBER 2024

JUDGMENT:

1. his Second Appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law:-

“Whether the First Appellate Court was justiied in holding that the appellant is not entitled to the protection of 1997 amendment to Section 3 of the Rent Act thereby holding that the suit iled by the landlord before the Civil Court is maintainable?”

2. With the consent of the parties and as all relevant pleadings and documents are on record, the appeal is inally heard forthwith.

3. he challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment and Decree dated 17.01.2024 passed by the District Judge-3, South Goa at Margao reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 07.03.2019 passed by the IIIrd Additional Ad-hoc Civil Judge, Senior Division at Margao in Regular Civil Suit No.427/2010/III (New).

4. he appellant is the tenant of the suit premises which are in the basement of the building known as “Kamat House” admeasuring about

278 sq.mtrs. he respondent is the landlord of the suit premises.

5. he suit premises came to be leased to the appellant/tenant vide Lease Deed dated 30.03.1987 commencing from 01.04.1987 for a period `

of ive years. he amount of rent ixed was 4,500/- per month. Admittedly, the said lease was renewed for a period of ive years in terms of the renewal clause of the said deed dated 30.08.1987. From 01.04.1992 `

the lease was renewed for ive years. he rent was increased to 6,000/- per month.

6. By an amendment dated 05.05.1994, Section 3 of the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (the Rent Act for short) was amended and the protection given to the tenant under the Rent Act came `

to be withdrawn for buildings leased for the rent amount of 5000/- and above if the “building was used for commercial purposes”.

7. he respondent/landlord terminated the lease on 31.03.1997 by a notice of termination on the ground of elux of time and called upon the tenant to hand over the possession.

8. After the lease was terminated, the landlord iled a Civil Suit before the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao bearing Special Civil Suit No.155/1997 for eviction, recovery of mesne proits and consequential reliefs on 01.08.1997 i.e. prior to coming into force of the 1997 amendment on 03.10.1997 (referred to as the earlier suit). he tenant raised an objection to the jurisdiction of the Court to adjudicate the issue. A preliminary issue was framed vide Order dated 01.02.2000 wherein the Trial Court held that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to try the Suit. he Trial Court relied on the amended provision of Section 3(1)(cc) of the Act brought into force in the year 1994. he order dated 01.02.2000 was not assailed and as such the same attained inality.

9. In the year 2001, the landlord iled another Civil Suit bearing No.117/2001 before the Civil Judge, Senior division, Margao for eviction, mesne proit and consequential reliefs against th