Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Kanchan Ramdas Morascar, was a tenant in a premises used for shoe business, originally leased to her father-in-law and later continued by her husband and herself. The respondents, Dr. Armando Joao Benedito Mascarenhas (since deceased) through his legal representatives, filed an application under Section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, alleging that the tenant had sub-let the premises without consent. The Administrative Tribunal, Goa, by order dated 22/08/2012, allowed the respondents' application, stopped the proceedings under Section 22(2)(f) (which the tenant had initiated for standard rent fixation), and directed the petitioner to vacate the premises within two months. The petitioner challenged this order by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa. The High Court found that the Tribunal had not conducted a proper inquiry as required under Section 32(4), which mandates a summary inquiry to form a prima facie opinion. The Tribunal had not given the petitioner adequate opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or lead evidence, and had relied on documents that were not properly proved. The High Court held that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and was therefore unsustainable. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the Administrative Tribunal for fresh consideration, directing the Tribunal to afford both parties a fair opportunity to present their case and to decide the applications afresh in accordance with law. The writ petition was allowed, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Sub-letting - Section 32(4) of Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 - The Tribunal allowed the landlord's application under Section 32(4) to stop proceedings under Section 22(2)(f) and directed eviction, but failed to conduct a proper inquiry or give the tenant adequate opportunity to present her case. The High Court held that the order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice and set it aside, remanding the matter for fresh consideration. (Paras 2-10) B) Rent Control - Inquiry - Section 32(4) - The provision requires the Rent Controller to hold a summary inquiry and form a prima facie opinion before stopping eviction proceedings. The Tribunal's order was based on insufficient material and did not consider the tenant's evidence, thus vitiating the decision. (Paras 5-8) C) Natural Justice - Fair Hearing - The tenant was not given a proper opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or lead evidence, and the Tribunal relied on documents not properly proved. The High Court emphasized that even in summary proceedings, basic principles of natural justice must be followed. (Paras 6-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Administrative Tribunal was justified in allowing the respondents' application under Section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 and directing eviction of the petitioner without conducting a proper inquiry and without giving the petitioner a fair opportunity to be heard.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order dated 22/08/2012 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, and remanded the matter back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The Tribunal was directed to afford both parties a fair opportunity to present their case and to decide the applications under Section 32(1) and Section 32(4) afresh in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Rent control
- Eviction
- Sub-letting
- Inquiry under Section 32(4)
- Prima facie case
- Burden of proof
