Bombay High Court at Goa Upholds Eviction of Tenant for Wilful Default in Rent Payment Despite Prior Condonation Under Section 22(3) of Goa Rent Control Act. Tenant's repeated default and failure to pay rent for 14 months justifies eviction, and benefit under Section 22(3) cannot be claimed more than once.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: GOA In Favour of Prosecution
  • 19
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involves a dispute between landlords (respondents) and a tenant (petitioner) over eviction from suit premises let out in January 1966 for a restaurant business. The landlords filed eviction proceedings on the ground of default in payment of rent. The tenant had previously committed default on two occasions but availed benefit under Section 22(3) of the Goa Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, which allows a tenant to avoid eviction by paying arrears. In the present case, the tenant failed to pay rent for 14 months. The Administrative Tribunal allowed the landlords' appeal and ordered eviction. The tenant challenged this in the High Court. The High Court held that the tenant's default was wilful, as he had sufficient means but chose not to pay. The court also held that the benefit under Section 22(3) is available only once, and the tenant had already availed it twice. Therefore, the eviction order was upheld. The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no error in the Tribunal's decision.

Headnote

A) Rent Control - Wilful Default - Section 22(3) Goa Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 - Eviction - The tenant committed default in payment of rent for 14 months despite having availed benefit under Section 22(3) on two earlier occasions - The Administrative Tribunal allowed eviction appeal - The High Court held that the tenant's default was wilful and the benefit under Section 22(3) cannot be claimed repeatedly - The court upheld the eviction order, finding no perversity in the Tribunal's decision (Paras 2-10).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the tenant's failure to pay rent for 14 months constitutes wilful default entitling the landlords to eviction, and whether the tenant can claim benefit under Section 22(3) of the Goa Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 more than once.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the eviction order passed by the Administrative Tribunal.

Law Points

  • Wilful default
  • Condonation of default
  • Section 22(3) Goa Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease
  • Rent and Eviction) Control Act
  • 1968
  • Eviction on ground of default
  • Benefit of Section 22(3) available only once
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (04) 85

Writ Petition No. 67 of 2012

2017-04-27

M. S. Sonak, J.

Mr. S. G. Desai, Senior Advocate with Mr. S. Keny for petitioner; Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. T. Ghanekar for respondents

Shri Ashok Jagannath Chodankar (deceased) through legal heirs: Smt. Kalandi Ashok Chodankar, Mrs. Sonali Rajesh Valvaikar, Rajesh Tulshidas Valvaikar

Shri Jayram Ramchandra Sirsat, Shri Anand Ramchandra Sirsat, Mrs. Kusum Anand Sirsat, Shri Shankerlal Ramchandra Sirsat, Govind Ramchandra Sirsat, Mrs. Laximibai Govind Sirsat, Mr. Motilal Govind Sirsat, Mr. Shantilal Govind Sirsat, Mr. Jayant Govind Sirsat, Mr. Ashok Govind Sirsat, Mrs. Sucheta Vinayak Marathe, Mrs. Aarati Prasad Amonkar

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging eviction order passed by Administrative Tribunal under the Goa Rent Control Act.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners (tenant) sought to quash the eviction order and retain possession of the suit premises.

Filing Reason

Tenant defaulted in payment of rent for 14 months, leading to eviction proceedings by landlords.

Previous Decisions

Administrative Tribunal allowed Eviction Appeal No. 131/2002 ordering eviction of tenant.

Issues

Whether the tenant's default in payment of rent for 14 months constitutes wilful default. Whether the tenant can claim benefit under Section 22(3) of the Goa Rent Control Act more than once.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the default was not wilful and that they had already availed benefit under Section 22(3) on earlier occasions. Respondents argued that the tenant's default was wilful and that Section 22(3) benefit cannot be claimed repeatedly.

Ratio Decidendi

The tenant's failure to pay rent for 14 months despite having means constitutes wilful default. The benefit under Section 22(3) of the Goa Rent Control Act is available only once, and the tenant having availed it twice cannot claim it again. Therefore, eviction is justified.

Judgment Excerpts

This petition challenges the judgment and order dated 4.1.2011 made by the Administrative Tribunal, allowing Eviction Appeal No.131/2002 instituted by the respondents(landlords) ordering the eviction of the petitioner(tenant) from the suit premises on the ground of default in payment of rent. The tenant committed a default in payment of rent for 14 months, which is wilful.

Procedural History

Landlords filed eviction proceedings; Administrative Tribunal allowed appeal ordering eviction; tenant filed writ petition in High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Goa Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968: Section 22(3)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Termination of Probationer Stenographer for Unsatisfactory Work. Termination of a probationer on grounds of unsuitability is not stigmatic and does not require a formal inquiry.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court at Goa Upholds Eviction of Tenant for Wilful Default in Rent Payment Despite Prior Condonation Under Section 22(3) of Goa Rent Control Act. Tenant's repeated default and failure to pay rent for 14 months justifies eviction, and bene...