Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Michael Anthony William Gareth and Amelia Gareth, were tenants in a house bearing Municipal no. 73, Panaji, Goa, which was acquired by the first respondent, Maria do Rosario Da Fatima, through a Deed of Gift dated 14.06.1994. After the death of the original tenant on 04.05.1995, the petitioners continued as tenants. On 16.08.1999, the respondent filed eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller under the Goa, Daman & Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, seeking eviction on the ground that the premises were required for her personal occupation and that of her family. She claimed that she and her son were living in an adjoining house belonging to her sister, where she had to stay to care for her sick and blind mother, who died in June 1997. She further stated that her father and sister had requested her to vacate that house, necessitating her need for the disputed premises. The petitioners filed a reply contesting the bonafide nature of the need, alleging it was not genuine. The Rent Controller, by judgment and order dated 25.01.2006, allowed the eviction petition. The petitioners appealed to the Administrative Tribunal, which dismissed the appeal on 15.11.2010. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, seeking to quash both orders. The High Court, after hearing arguments, held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities were based on evidence and not perverse. The court noted that the landlord's need was genuine as she had to vacate her sister's house and required her own premises for residence. The court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, upholding the eviction order.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Bonafide Need - Personal Occupation - Section 22(2)(e) of Goa, Daman & Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 - Landlord sought eviction of tenants from premises acquired by gift, claiming requirement for her own residence after being asked to vacate sister's house where she was staying - Tenants contested bonafide need - Held that the landlord's need was genuine and bonafide, and the concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and Administrative Tribunal were based on evidence and not perverse (Paras 2-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Administrative Tribunal on the ground of bonafide need of the landlord for personal occupation is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The judgment and order of the Rent Controller dated 25.01.2006 and the Administrative Tribunal dated 15.11.2010 are upheld. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Bonafide need of landlord
- Personal occupation
- Eviction under Rent Control Act
- Burden of proof on landlord
- Genuineness of requirement
