Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Gracy D'Souza, was the tenant of a premises owned by the original landlady, Ana Rosalina D'Souza (since deceased, represented by her legal heirs). In 1983, the landlady filed an application under Section 23(b) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, seeking eviction of the tenant on the ground that she required the premises for demolition and reconstruction. The Additional Rent Controller allowed the eviction application, and the tenant appealed to the Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal, by its order dated 22.04.2013, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the eviction. The tenant then filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa. A co-ordinate Bench initially set aside the Tribunal's order solely on the ground of inordinate delay between the hearing and the pronouncement of judgment, and remanded the matter. The landlords challenged this before the Supreme Court, which quashed the High Court's order and directed that the writ petition be heard on merits. The matter was then heard afresh. The tenant argued that the landlord's requirement was not bona fide and that the eviction was sought with mala fide intentions. The landlords contended that the building was old and required reconstruction, and that the tenant had no right to continue. The Court examined the evidence, including the report of the Rent Controller and the testimony of witnesses. It found that the landlord's requirement was genuine and that the tenant had failed to prove any mala fides. The Court also noted that the tenant had been in possession for decades and had not paid rent regularly. The Court upheld the eviction order, dismissing the writ petition. The Court directed that the tenant be given six months to vacate the premises, subject to the tenant filing an undertaking to vacate and pay arrears of rent.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Bona Fide Requirement - Section 23(b) Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 - The landlord sought eviction of the tenant for demolition and reconstruction of the building. The tenant challenged the eviction order on grounds of mala fides and lack of bona fide requirement. The Court held that the landlord's requirement was bona fide and the tenant failed to prove any mala fides. The eviction order was upheld. (Paras 1-50)
B) Rent Control - Delay in Passing Judgment - Administrative Tribunal - The co-ordinate Bench had earlier set aside the Tribunal's order due to inordinate delay between hearing and judgment. The Supreme Court quashed that order and directed hearing on merits. The Court held that the delay alone could not be a ground to set aside the order if the merits justified it. (Paras 1-2)
C) Constitutional Law - Judicial Review - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The Court examined the scope of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 and found that the Tribunal's findings were based on evidence and not perverse. Hence, no interference was warranted. (Paras 30-40)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the eviction order passed by the Administrative Tribunal under Section 23(b) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, is sustainable on merits, particularly regarding the bona fide requirement of the landlord for demolition and reconstruction.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller and confirmed by the Administrative Tribunal is upheld. The tenant is granted six months to vacate the premises subject to filing an undertaking to vacate and paying arrears of rent.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction under Section 23(b) of the Goa
- Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease
- Rent and Eviction) Control Act
- 1968
- Scope of judicial review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India
- Delay in passing judgment by the Administrative Tribunal
- Effect of remand by Supreme Court
Case Details
2024 LawText (BOM) (01) 236
WRIT PETITION NO. 16 OF 2013
Mr. A.F. Diniz, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ryan Menezes, Ms. Gina Almeida and Mr. Nigel Fernandes, Advocates for the Petitioner; Mr. Shivdatt P. Munj, Additional Government Advocate for Respondent No. 2; Mr. S.S. Kantak, Senior Advocate with Mr. Preetam Talaulikar, Mr. Sanjay Sardessai, Mr. Kher Simoes, Ms. Neha Kholkar and Ms. Saicha Desai, Advocates for Respondent Nos. 3(a) to 3(h).
The Administrative Tribunal by its Chairman, Panaji, Goa; The Addl. Rent Controller, Mapusa, Goa; Ana Rosalina D'Souza (dec) represented by her heirs
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Administrative Tribunal confirming eviction of the tenant under Section 23(b) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968.
Remedy Sought
The tenant sought to quash and set aside the eviction order passed by the Administrative Tribunal and the Additional Rent Controller.
Filing Reason
The tenant was aggrieved by the eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller and confirmed by the Administrative Tribunal on the ground of bona fide requirement of the landlord for demolition and reconstruction.
Previous Decisions
The Additional Rent Controller allowed the eviction application in 2013. The Administrative Tribunal dismissed the tenant's appeal on 22.04.2013. A co-ordinate Bench of the High Court initially set aside the Tribunal's order on 05.04.2023 due to delay, but the Supreme Court quashed that order on 22.08.2023 and directed hearing on merits.
Issues
Whether the eviction order under Section 23(b) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, is sustainable on merits?
Whether the landlord's requirement for demolition and reconstruction was bona fide?
Whether the tenant proved any mala fides on the part of the landlord?
Submissions/Arguments
The tenant argued that the landlord's requirement was not bona fide and that the eviction was sought with mala fide intentions to get higher rent.
The landlords contended that the building was old and required reconstruction, and that the tenant had no right to continue in possession.
Ratio Decidendi
The landlord's requirement for demolition and reconstruction under Section 23(b) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, was bona fide and the tenant failed to prove any mala fides. The findings of the lower authorities were based on evidence and not perverse, hence no interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was warranted.
Judgment Excerpts
Vide order dated 22.04.2013, Rule was issued in this matter.
The Apex Court quashed and set aside the oral judgment passed by this Court and directed that the matter be heard on merits.
The Petitioner is the tenant whereas the legal representatives of Respondent No. 3 are the landlords.
The original landlady-Ms. Ana Rosalina D’Souza filed an Application for eviction of the tenant in the year 1983 under Section 23(b) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968.
Procedural History
In 1983, the landlady filed an eviction application under Section 23(b) of the Rent Control Act. The Additional Rent Controller allowed the application. The tenant appealed to the Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal on 22.04.2013. The tenant filed Writ Petition No. 16 of 2013 before the Bombay High Court at Goa. A co-ordinate Bench set aside the Tribunal's order on 05.04.2023 due to delay. The landlords filed SLP (C) No. 12952 of 2023 before the Supreme Court, which quashed the High Court's order on 22.08.2023 and directed hearing on merits. The matter was then heard afresh and disposed of on 23.01.2024.
Acts & Sections
- Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968: 23(b)
- Constitution of India: 227
