AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A.P. Lavande, J
Heard Mr. Ramani, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned counsel appearing for the Respondents nos. 1 and 2. The respondents nos 3 2 and 4 are formal parties to the petition. By this petition the Petitioner has challenged orders passed by the Rent Controller, Margao, Goa and by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, ordering eviction of the Petitioner form the suit premises. According to Mr. Ramani the application filed by the respondents nos.1 and 2 u/s 23(1)(a)(i) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 was not maintainable and in any case the respondents nos.1 and 2 had got possession of the premises on the first floor when one of the tenants viz. Mahabaleshwar Borkar vacated the tenanted premises in the year 1990, Mr. Ramani submits that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed
Mr. Mulgaonkar placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uday Shankar Upadhyay and others Vs. Naveen Maheshwari, reported in (2010) 1 SC Cases 503 and submitted that it is for the landlord to prove that he is in bonafide need of the premises and once he proves the same, the Court cannot dictate to the landlord which premises he should use.
I have perused the record and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. I am of the opinion that the matter needs consideration, hence, Rule. Mr. Mulgaonkar waives service on behalf of Respondent nos.1 and 2.
Admittedly, both the Tribunals below have held against the Petitioner. Initially the rent payable by the Petitioner was Rs.200/- per month and in the year 1980 or thereabout, the rent was increased to Rs.400/- per month.
The real estate prices in Goa have gone up to a larger extent during the last 30 years and, therefore, it is just and proper to direct the petitioner to deposit a reasonable monthly amount in the event the eviction order is stayed.
Considering the location of the suit premises and the fact that the premises are let out for a commercial purpose to the Petitioner, I am of the opinion that it will be just and proper to direct the Petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs.8000/-(Rupees Eight thousand only) per month, beginning from June, 2010.
Mr. Ramani fairly submitted that the Petitioner would have no objection if the respondents nos.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw the amount of Rs.1000/-(One thousand only) per month, unconditionally. He further submitted that the amount be permitted to be deposited in this Court.
In view of the above, the execution of the impugned orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal and the Rent Controller are stayed, subject to the Petitioner depositing in this Court, the amount of Rs.8000/-per month on or before the 10th of every month, beginning from September, 2010. The amount payable in respect of June to August, 2010 shall be deposited before 10th September, 2010. Liberty to the respondents no.1 and 2 to withdraw the amount of Rs.1000/-per month, out of the amount of Rs.8000/-. During the pendency of the petition, the Petitioner shall not change the nature of the suit property nor create any third party rights.
The respondents nos.1 and 2 are permitted to withdraw from the amount deposited the amount of Rs.1000/-per month, unconditionally and the balance amount shall be invested in Fixed Deposit for a period of one year to be renewed from time to time till disposal of the appeal.
The Petitioner is also permitted to deposit the rent in respect of the suit premises for the months of March to May 2010 at the rate of Rs.400/-per month before 10/9/2010. Liberty to Respondents no.1 and 2 to withdraw the same. At the request of Mr. Mulgaonkar, the hearing of the petition is expedited since the matter pertains to eviction of tenant on the ground of bonafide need of the premises by the landlord.