Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Civil Revision Application filed by the landlords (petitioners) against the judgment and order dated 30th April 2018 passed by the Appellate Court (Ad-hoc District Judge-1, South Goa, Margao) in Rent Appeal No. 4/2016, which dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Rent Controller dated 31st March 2016 in Eviction Case No. 18/2012/B. The landlords had sought eviction of the tenants (respondents) from a shop premises on the grounds of reasonable requirement for their own use and for repairs under the Goa Rent Control Act, 1969. The Rent Controller dismissed the eviction application, holding that the landlords failed to prove their bona fide requirement and that the notice under Section 22(1) of the Act was not properly served. The Appellate Court upheld this decision. In revision, the High Court examined whether the concurrent findings of fact were perverse or without jurisdiction. The Court noted that the landlords had alternative accommodation and that the notice was not served in accordance with law. The High Court dismissed the revision, holding that there was no error of law or jurisdiction warranting interference. The Court emphasized that the revisional jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence unless the findings are perverse. The decision was rendered on 3rd August 2023 by Justice M.S. Sonak.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Bona Fide Requirement - Section 22(1) of Goa Rent Control Act, 1969 - Landlords sought eviction of tenants on ground of reasonable requirement for own use and for repairs - Rent Controller and Appellate Court dismissed application finding that landlords failed to prove bona fide requirement and that notice under Section 22(1) was not properly served - High Court upheld findings, holding that concurrent findings of fact cannot be interfered with in revision unless perverse or without jurisdiction (Paras 1-31). B) Rent Control - Notice - Service of Notice - Section 22(1) of Goa Rent Control Act, 1969 - Landlords alleged notice was served by affixture but failed to prove due service - Appellate Court found that notice was not served in accordance with law - High Court affirmed that proper service of notice is a condition precedent for eviction (Paras 15-20). C) Rent Control - Eviction - Reasonable Requirement - Landlords claimed need for personal occupation and repairs but evidence showed they had alternative accommodation - Rent Controller and Appellate Court held that requirement was not bona fide - High Court declined to interfere, noting that concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence (Paras 21-30).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court were justified in dismissing the landlords' eviction application on the grounds of lack of bona fide requirement and non-compliance with the notice requirements under Section 22(1) of the Goa Rent Control Act, 1969.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the orders of the Rent Controller and Appellate Court. The Court found no error of law or jurisdiction in the concurrent findings that the landlords failed to prove bona fide requirement and that the notice under Section 22(1) was not properly served.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement of landlord
- Service of notice under Section 22(1) of Goa Rent Control Act
- 1969
- Eviction on ground of reasonable requirement
- Burden of proof on landlord
- Non-compliance with statutory notice
- Dismissal of revision for lack of merit
