Case Note & Summary
The petitioners (original applicants) filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and order dated 25/02/1991 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, Daman, Diu at Panaji in Eviction Appeal No.16 of 1988. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal filed by the respondent (original opponent) and set aside the eviction order dated 29/04/1988 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Daman. The dispute pertained to premises in Daman, where the landlord sought eviction of the tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement for demolition and reconstruction under the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. The Additional Rent Controller had allowed the eviction, but the Tribunal reversed it, holding that the landlord had not proved his bona fide need. The High Court examined the evidence, including the landlord's testimony and an Architect's report indicating the building was dilapidated. The Court found that the Tribunal had failed to consider this evidence and had acted perversely. The High Court held that the Tribunal's order suffered from a manifest error of law and was liable to be set aside. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, the Tribunal's order was quashed, and the eviction order of the Additional Rent Controller was restored. The Court also disposed of the pending civil application.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Bona Fide Need for Demolition and Reconstruction - The landlord sought eviction under the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 for bona fide requirement of demolition and reconstruction. The Additional Rent Controller allowed eviction, but the Administrative Tribunal reversed it. The High Court under Article 227 set aside the Tribunal's order, holding that the Tribunal failed to properly appreciate the evidence regarding the landlord's need and the structural condition of the building. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Article 227 - Supervisory Jurisdiction - The High Court's power under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate. However, where the inferior tribunal has acted in excess of jurisdiction or has committed a manifest error of law, the High Court can interfere. In this case, the Tribunal's order was perverse and based on non-consideration of material evidence, warranting interference. (Paras 8-10) C) Evidence - Appreciation by Appellate Authority - The appellate authority must consider all evidence on record and give reasons for reversing findings of fact. The Tribunal failed to consider the landlord's testimony and the report of the Architect regarding the dilapidated condition of the building. Hence, its order was set aside. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Administrative Tribunal was justified in reversing the Additional Rent Controller's order of eviction on the ground of bona fide need for demolition and reconstruction, and whether the High Court under Article 227 should interfere with such finding.
Final Decision
The writ petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 25/02/1991 of the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, Daman, Diu at Panaji in Eviction Appeal No.16 of 1988 is quashed and set aside. The eviction order dated 29/04/1988 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Daman is restored. Civil Application No.1120 of 2016 is disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- Bona fide requirement of landlord
- Demolition and reconstruction
- Rent control legislation
- Article 227 of Constitution of India
- Scope of supervisory jurisdiction
- Appreciation of evidence by appellate authority
