Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Abdul Sattar Kulli, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court of Bombay at Goa, challenging the judgment and order dated 29-12-2016 passed by the Appellate Board, North Goa, Panaji. The Appellate Board had dismissed his appeal against the eviction order dated 15-01-1997 passed by the Additional Rent Controller-II, Mapusa, which directed him to vacate the suit premises. The case arose from eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord, Smt. Aisham Bi Mamlekar (since deceased, represented by her legal heirs), under the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, on the ground of rent default. The petitioner contended that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction because there was no written lease deed, as required by Section 34 of the Act, and claimed he was a Mundkar (protected tenant), thereby denying the landlord-tenant relationship. The Rent Controller and the Appellate Board both found that the petitioner had failed to prove Mundkarship, that his denial of title was not bonafide, and that he had admitted paying rent, thus establishing a tenancy. The eviction was ordered, and the appeal dismissed with costs. In the writ petition, the primary legal issues were whether Section 34 of the Act is mandatory or directory, whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction in the absence of a written lease, and whether the denial of title was bonafide. The petitioner argued that Section 34 mandates a written lease and that without it, no evidence could be led contrary to Section 91 of the Evidence Act. The respondents countered that Section 34 is directory, and the comprehensive provisions of the Act, particularly Sections 2(i), 2(o), 17, and 21, demonstrate that a tenancy can exist without a written deed. The High Court examined the statutory scheme and held that Section 34 is directory, not mandatory, and that the absence of a written lease does not oust the Rent Controller's jurisdiction. The court noted that the definition of landlord and tenant under the Act does not require a written lease, and Section 17 provides mechanisms for rent payment and receipts, indicating that a tenancy can subsist without a formal agreement. The court further observed that the proviso to Section 21 requires the Controller to decide the bonafides of any denial of title; since the lower authorities had found that the denial was not bonafide and the plea of Mundkarship was unproven, the Rent Controller rightly retained jurisdiction. The High Court declined to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact, as no perversity was shown. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the eviction order was confirmed, holding that the tenant was liable to be evicted.
Headnote
A) Rent Control Law - Jurisdiction of Rent Controller - Requirement of Written Lease - Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, Sections 34, 2(i), 2(o), 17, 22 - The tenant challenged eviction on the ground that no written lease deed existed, thus ousting Rent Controller's jurisdiction. The Court held that Section 34 is directory, not mandatory, and the absence of a written lease does not preclude the Rent Controller from entertaining eviction proceedings if a landlord-tenant relationship is otherwise established. The tenant cannot avoid eviction merely by denying the existence of a written agreement. (Paras 4, 7-10) B) Rent Control Law - Denial of Title and Claim of Permanent Tenancy - Bona Fides Requirement - Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, Section 21 proviso - The tenant raised a plea of Mundkarship, thereby denying the landlord's title. The Court examined whether such denial was bonafide. The Rent Controller and Appellate Board had found that the tenant failed to prove Mundkarship and that the denial was not bonafide. The High Court, in writ jurisdiction, declined to re-appreciate evidence and upheld the concurrent findings of fact, holding that the Rent Controller properly retained jurisdiction. (Paras 4, 9) C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Interference under Article 227 - Concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and Appellate Board are binding on the High Court in writ jurisdiction unless perverse or based on no evidence. The High Court found no perversity in the orders and refused to re-examine evidence, dismissing the petition. (Paras 6) D) Evidence Law - Proof of Tenancy - Burden of Proof - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 91 - The tenant argued that in the absence of a written lease, oral evidence was barred under Section 91. The Court, however, noted that the landlord-tenant relationship can be established through other evidence, such as payment of rent, and that the tenant had admitted to paying rent in the past. The absence of a written lease does not negate the existence of a tenancy. (Paras 2-3, 8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to adjudicate eviction proceedings when there was no written lease deed and the tenant denied the landlord-tenant relationship, claiming Mundkarship; whether Section 34 of the Goa Rent Control Act is mandatory or directory; whether the denial of title was bona fide; whether the High Court under Article 227 should interfere with concurrent findings of fact
Final Decision
The writ petition was dismissed. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower authorities, holding that the Rent Controller had jurisdiction despite the absence of a written lease as Section 34 of the Goa Rent Control Act is directory. The Court found that the tenant's denial of title was not bonafide and his plea of Mundkarship was unproven. The eviction order was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed with no interference in the findings of fact.
Law Points
- Section 34 of Goa Rent Control Act is directory
- not mandatory
- absence of written lease does not oust Rent Controller's jurisdiction
- denial of landlord's title must be bona fide
- tenant claiming Mundkarship must prove it
- writ court not to re-appreciate concurrent findings of fact unless perverse
- Section 17 & 22 provide tenant's remedies for non-issuance of receipts
- Section 21 proviso requires Controller to decide bonafides of denial of title
- jurisdiction of Rent Controller is not dependent on existence of written lease
