Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Anand S. Lad, filed a writ petition challenging the judgment dated 27.06.2007 of the Administrative Tribunal dismissing his eviction appeal against the order of the Rent Controller, Panaji, in case No. ADDL/RENT/4/94. The respondents, Ms. Amira Abdul Razak and others, as landlords, had sought eviction of the petitioner's mother (original tenant) from the suit premises. The suit premises were leased to the petitioner's father in September 1967 for residential purposes. After a family settlement on 24.01.1989, the respondents became owners of the property. The landlords alleged that the tenant sublet the premises without consent and failed to pay rent. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction petition, and the Administrative Tribunal dismissed the tenant's appeal. The petitioner, as legal heir, challenged these orders. The High Court examined the grounds of subletting under Section 22(2)(a) and non-payment of rent under Section 22(2)(d) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. The court noted that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities were based on evidence and not perverse. The petitioner argued that the subletting was not proved, but the court found that the tenant's mother had allowed a third party to occupy the premises, which amounted to subletting. Regarding non-payment of rent, the court found that the tenant had not paid rent for several months. The High Court held that there was no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings and dismissed the writ petition. The court also noted that the petitioner had not deposited the arrears of rent as directed. The judgment was pronounced on 25.10.2013 by Justice F. M. Reis.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Subletting - Section 22(2)(a) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 - The landlord sought eviction on the ground that the tenant sublet the premises without consent. The Rent Controller and Administrative Tribunal found that the tenant's mother had sublet the premises to a third party. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings, holding that subletting was established and no interference was warranted. (Paras 2-10) B) Rent Control - Eviction - Non-payment of Rent - Section 22(2)(d) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 - The landlord also sought eviction for arrears of rent. The courts below found that the tenant failed to pay rent for several months. The High Court affirmed that non-payment of rent was a valid ground for eviction. (Paras 2-10) C) Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Concurrent Findings - The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and Administrative Tribunal cannot be interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless they are perverse or based on no evidence. No such infirmity was found. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the eviction of the petitioner/tenant on grounds of subletting and non-payment of rent under the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. The eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Administrative Tribunal is upheld.
Law Points
- Subletting without landlord's consent constitutes ground for eviction
- Non-payment of rent is a ground for eviction
- Tenant's right to challenge eviction on grounds of subletting and arrears of rent
- Burden of proof on landlord to establish subletting
- Concurrent findings of fact not interfered with in writ jurisdiction unless perverse
