Case Note & Summary
The dispute pertains to a residential house in Panaji, Goa, leased by Antonio Neri Francisco Fernandes to Chintamona Boirov Moralkar in 1952. After Chintamona's death, his son Naneshwar Maralkar became the tenant and paid rent to the landlady Esmeraldo Rego Fernandes, widow of Antonio. In 1985, the landlady filed an eviction application under the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, alleging that the tenant had sub-let the premises after his wife was allotted municipal quarters. The tenant denied the landlady's title, claiming that the property belonged to his father. The Additional Rent Controller dismissed the eviction application, holding that the denial of title was not bona fide as the tenant continued to pay rent. The landlady appealed to the District Judge, who reversed the Rent Controller's order and allowed eviction. The tenant filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court at Goa. The High Court examined the record and found that the tenant had consistently paid rent and did not set up a hostile title. The court held that the denial of title was not bona fide and that the Appellate Court had erred in interfering with the Rent Controller's findings without establishing perversity. The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the District Judge's order, and restored the Rent Controller's order dismissing the eviction application.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Denial of Title - Bona Fide Denial - The tenant's denial of the landlady's title must be bona fide and substantial; mere denial without cessation of rent payment does not constitute a ground for eviction under the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. The court held that the tenant continued to pay rent and did not set up a hostile title, hence the denial was not bona fide (Paras 3-10). B) Rent Control - Appellate Jurisdiction - Interference with Findings of Fact - The Appellate Court can interfere only if the findings of the Rent Controller are perverse or based on no evidence. The District Judge erred in reversing the Rent Controller's order without finding perversity (Paras 11-15).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the denial of title by the tenant was bona fide and whether the Appellate Court was justified in reversing the Rent Controller's order dismissing the eviction application.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment of the District Judge dated 11.04.2019, and restored the order of the Additional Rent Controller dismissing the eviction application.
Law Points
- Denial of title must be bona fide and substantial to attract eviction under Rent Control Act
- Mere denial without cessation of rent payment does not constitute ground for eviction
- Appellate court's interference with findings of fact limited to perversity
