Advocates:
['N SARDESSAI', 'SUDESH USGAONKAR FOR', '', 'SHRI SUDESH USGAONKAR FORRESP TO & TO', 'SHRI S USGAONKAR', '', '', 'amp; THRO', 'SHRI S USGAONKAR', 'SHRI SUDESH USGAONKAR FORRESP &']

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

SECOND APPEAL NO. 84 OF 2000

SMT.RUKMINI V.GAONKAR AND ORS.

....Appellants

Versus

SMT.PARVATI Y.WALKE THR.HER

....Respondents

ATTORNEY

MR.N.SARDESSAI,MR.SUDESH USGAONKAR FOR

Coram:- A.M.KHANWILKAR, J.

Date:-

28th November, 2003

P.C.:

The respondent no.1/landlady filed a sui

t for eviction against the appellants.

The trial Court passed a decree on four

different grounds which has been affirme

d by the Appellate Court. It is not nece

ssary for me to advert to three grounds,

because I find force in the submission

of Shri. Usgaokar, learned Senior Counse

l for the appellants, that the concurren

t decree as passed by the Court below on

the ground under section 46(1)(b) of th

e Portuguese Decree, does not merit any

interference.

The respondents clearly asserted, which

fact has been established in evidence an

d held to have been proved by the two Co

urts below, that the lease was originall

y of land for the purpose of constructin

g a temporary structure to set up a Ban

d Saw Mill. According to the respondents

, instead of using the premises for the

said purpose, the appellants have used t

he same for residence, inspite of expres

s covenan