Advocates:
['P A KHOLKAR', 'SHRI NITIN N SARDESSAI', '', 'G SHIRODKAR G A', 'J GODINHO', '', '', 'amp']

1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA

WRIT PETITION NO. 656 OF 2009

1. Geeta Veljee, widow of late

Nazim Veljee,

2. Raunaq Veljee,

Both major, and resident of

House No.11, Alto Nagali,

Near Chowgule's Bungalow,

Donapaula, Goa 403 004.

....... Petitioner.

V/s.

1. Shri Sertorio Celho Pereira,

r/o. Panaji Goa (since deceased)

through his legal representatives

respondents No.2 to 5 and 14.

2. Dr. Herlander C. Pereira,

3. Smt. Maria C. Pereira,

Both r/o. England.

4. Dr. Amandio C. Pereira,

r/o. Mumbai.

5. Shri Jose Elmano C. Pereira,

r/o. Panaji, Goa.

Shri Kamruddin A. Veljee,

(since deceased) through is LRs.

6. T. Veljee,

7. Brenda Veljee,

2

Both r/o. C/o. Benetton Show Room,

Opp. Delhi Darbar,

Panaji, Goa.

8. Mahedi Veljee

9. Rukshana Veljee,

Both r/o. T & A Showroom,

Navelkar Plaza, Atmaram Borkar Road,

Panaji, Goa.

10. Noorallah Veljee,

11. Doris Veljee,

Both r/o. Rizvi Towers,

St. Inez, Panaji, Goa.

12. Laila Gilani,

13. Mubarak Gilani,

Both c/o. Nurullah Veljee,

Rizvi Towers,

St. Inez, Panaji, Goa.

14. Ms. Celina Coelho Pereira,

c/o. Shri J.E. Coelho Pereira,

next to Church View Building,

Panaji, Goa.

15. President,

Administrative Tribunal Goa,

3^rd Vaidya Building,

near Municipal Market,

Panaji, Goa.

16. Rent Controller,

3

Office of the Collectorate,

Panaji, Goa.

........ Respondents.

Mr. P. A. Kholkar, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. V. B. Nadkarni, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. Godinho,

Advocate for respondents No.2, 3, 4, 5 and 14.

Mr. D. Shirodkar, Advocate for respondent No.10.

Mr. G. Shirodkar, Govt. Advocate for respondent No.15.

CORAM :- S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.

Date :- 17^th March, 2011.

P.C. :-

This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India is directed against the concurrent Judgments

rendered by the Additional Deputy Collector, Authorised Officer &

Rent Controller, Panaji, Goa and the Administrative Tribunal, Goa.

2.

The petitioners, and respondents No.6 to 14, are the heirs of

original tenant Kamruddin A. Veljee. Respondents No.1 to 5 are the

original landlords.

3.

Respondents No.1 to 5 instituted an eviction application

4

being Case No.Rent/12/86 for eviction of the petitioners from the suit

premises. The suit premises were let out for running a shop. There are

two rooms on the ground floor of the building, situate in the property

bearing Matriz No.336 at Panaji, Goa.

4.

The ground for eviction is under Section 22(2)(f) of the

Goa, Daman and Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act,

1968 (hereinafter, referred to as “the Rent Act”).

5.

That is a ground for eviction of a tenant on his ceasing to

occupy the building for a continuous period of four months without

reasonable cause.

6.

The submission of Shri Kholkar, learned Counsel

appearing on behalf of the petitioners is that the Courts below have

failed to appreciate that an Eviction order on this ground can be made

only after giving the tenant opportunity of showing cause that he has

ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of 4 months,

without reasonable cause. In the instant case, in the eviction

application, it has been stated that the petitioners' predecessor-in-title

5

had ceased to occupy the building, but the pleading itself is lacking in

clarity and precision. The pleading has been that the original tenant

had, for over a year, closed down the shoe business in the premises and

removed the board of his business and there was no electricity

consumption in the suit premises and the same had been continuously

locked. It is in such circumstances, it is alleged that the original tenant

had ceased to occupy the suit premises for a continuous period of four

months without reasonable cause. It is submitted that the burden is on

the landlord to prove that the tenant has ceased to occupy the premises

for a c