Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose under the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968, where the landlord sought eviction of the tenant from premises in Mulla Building, Ponda, Goa, on grounds of bona fide personal requirement and the tenant's acquisition of alternate premises within a 5 km radius. The eviction proceedings were instituted in 1998. The Rent Controller, by order dated 21 September 2005, allowed eviction on both grounds. The tenant's appeal before the Appellate Authority, District Judge-1, North Goa at Panaji, was dismissed on 16 March 2017, affirming the eviction. Aggrieved, the tenant filed Writ Petition No. 435 of 2022 before the High Court of Bombay at Goa on 22 October 2021, after a delay of over four and a half years from the appellate order. The tenant explained the delay on account of heart ailments, the COVID-19 pandemic, and his advocate's failure to communicate developments. The High Court found this explanation frivolous and smacking of mala fides, noting that the tenant had taken full advantage of the delay by continuing in the tenanted premises for almost 25 years since eviction proceedings began, while paying only a paltry rent of Rs 500 per month and not compensating at market rates after 2005. Despite the delay, the court heard the matter on merits at the request of the tenant's counsel. The tenant advanced three main contentions: first, that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to present his case as required by Section 22(2) of the Goa Act because his examination-in-chief was partly recorded on 18 June 2003 but his evidence was closed on 29 March 2004 without his cross-examination; second, that the ground under Section 22(2)(e) was not attracted because the alternate premises he purchased were for his parents, unemployed brother, and family, not for his own residence; third, that the landlord failed to establish bona fide requirement under Section 23(1)(a) because the landlord had a palatial eight-room house. The legal representatives of the deceased landlord argued that the concurrent findings of fact suffered from no perversity, that the tenant had been given ample opportunities but deliberately delayed the matter, and that the tenant led no contrary evidence. They sought dismissal with exemplary costs. The High Court of Bombay at Goa, per M. S. Sonak, J., rejected the tenant's contentions. On reasonable opportunity, the court examined the Rent Controller's findings based on Roznama entries and noted that the tenant sought several adjournments, remained absent from cross-examination despite repeated opportunities, and his evidence was closed only after nine months from the partial recording of examination-in-chief. The court held that the tenant was given more than ample opportunity and could not complain of lack of reasonable opportunity. On the alternate premises ground, the court noted the tenant's admission of purchase and the concurrent findings that he acquired vacant possession within 5 km; the tenant's explanation for use by family did not negate the ground. On bona fide requirement, the court held that the landlord was not required to show dire need, and the concurrent findings of bona fide personal occupation were supported by evidence and not perverse. The court further observed that in writ jurisdiction, concurrent findings of fact should not be interfered with absent perversity. Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the concurrent eviction orders on the grounds of delay and laches as well as on merits. The tenant's challenge failed and eviction was confirmed.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction Proceedings - Reasonable Opportunity to Tenant - Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968, Section 22(2) - The tenant contended that he was denied reasonable opportunity because his examination-in-chief was partly recorded on 18/6/2003 and his evidence was closed on 29/3/2004 after his absence. The court found from Roznama entries that repeated adjournments were taken and the tenant avoided cross-examination, so closure of evidence was justified. Held that the tenant was given more than ample opportunity and could not complain of lack of reasonable opportunity (Paras 6, 16-17). B) Rent Control - Ground of Eviction for Tenant Acquiring Alternate Premises - Applicability of Section 22(2)(e) - Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968, Section 22(2)(e) - The tenant admitted purchasing alternate premises but claimed they were for his parents, unemployed brother, and family, not for his own residence, so the provision should not apply. The concurrent findings of the Rent Controller and Appellate Authority established that the tenant had acquired vacant possession of other premises within 5 km of the tenanted premises. Held that the tenant's admission and failure to lead contrary evidence supported eviction on this ground (Paras 7, 18). C) Rent Control - Bona Fide Requirement of Landlord for Personal Occupation - Eviction Ground - Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968, Section 23(1)(a) - The tenant argued that the landlord had a palatial eight-room house and therefore no necessity to seek eviction. The lower courts concurrently held that the landlord had proved bona fide requirement for his own occupation. The High Court found no perversity in these findings and declined to interfere. Held that a landlord need not establish dire need once bona fide requirement is shown (Paras 8, 11). D) Writ Jurisdiction - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Limited Scope of Interference - Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226 and 227 - The tenant challenged concurrent findings of two lower fora in writ jurisdiction. The court held that absent perversity, the writ court should not re-appreciate evidence or disturb findings of fact based on record. Held that the concurrent findings of bona fide requirement and acquisition of alternate premises were not perverse and warranted no interference (Paras 5, 14, 17). E) Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Discretionary Bar to Relief - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The writ petition was filed after four and a half years challenging the 2017 appellate order, with explanation of ill health, COVID, and advocate negligence. The court found the explanation frivolous and smacking of mala fides, noting the tenant took advantage of delay and continued in premises for almost 25 years since eviction proceedings began in 1998. Held that the petition deserved dismissal on delay but was also considered on merits and failed (Paras 4-5, 14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the tenant was denied reasonable opportunity under Section 22(2) of the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968; whether eviction could be ordered on the ground of acquisition of alternate premises under Section 22(2)(e); whether the landlord established bona fide personal requirement under Section 23(1)(a); whether the writ petition was barred by delay and laches.
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed on merits and on the ground of delay and laches. The concurrent eviction orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Authority were upheld. The tenant's challenge failed and eviction was confirmed.
Law Points
- Rent control eviction grounds under Goa Buildings (Lease
- Rent & Eviction) Control Act
- 1968
- tenant's right to reasonable opportunity under Section 22(2)
- eviction on tenant acquiring alternate premises under Section 22(2)(e)
- landlord's bona fide requirement under Section 23(1)(a)
- limited writ jurisdiction over concurrent findings of fact
- delay and laches bar relief
