AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.A. Bobde, J.—Rule in both the Petitions. Returnable forthwith. Heard by consent.
The only contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the Administrative Tribunal has rejected the petitioners appeals on the basis that there was no need to examine the grounds pertaining to the existence of a bonafide need of the premises by the respondents-landlords. This contention is correct. Indeed, the Tribunal has observed vide paragraph 14 (page No. 97 of writ petition No. 39 of 2007) that:
...there is no question of bonafide requirement u/s 23(1)(a)(i) of the Act....
This observation is not in accordance with law. It is settled law vide Dr. Mulla Malhandas Khemani, since deceased by his heir 1(A) Mrs. Sundeera Mulo Khemani v. Shri Avelino Gregorio D''souza, since deceased represented by his legal representatives 1(a) Mrs. Blarche D''souza and Ors. 2000(1) Goa L.T. 154 that the need of the landlord must be bonafide. Indeed, that is the requirement of Section 25 of The Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction), Control Act, 1968, which reads as follows:
Controller to decide right to possession.-The Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord u/s 23 is bonafide, make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on such date as may be specified by the Controller and if the Controller is not satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application.
Provided that in the case of an application under Sub-section (3) of Section 23, the Controller shall reject the application, if he is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting it will outweigh the advantage to the landlord:
Provided further that the Controller may give to a tenant a reasonable time of not less than three months and not exceeding six months, for putting the landlord in possession of the building and may extend such time so as not to exceed six months in the aggregate from the date of the order.
In this view of the matter, though it is contended by Mr. Usgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the respondents that the finding of the lower court which is confirmed by the Tribunal is on the basis that the respondents need the premises bonafide, I am of view the appellate court has nonetheless failed to examine the grounds raised by the petitioners from the point of view of bonafide need of the respondents. This is because the appellate court was of the view that no question of bonafides arise where the landlords seek eviction u/s 23.
In this view of the matter, I am of view that the interest of justice would be served if the judgments of the Tribunal in both the matters are set aside since it suffer from the error of law apparent on the face of the record and the matters are remanded back to the Tribunal for afresh decision in accordance with law. Having regard to the circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal is directed to decide the Appeals afresh within a period of two months from the date parties appear before the Tribunal. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28th April, 2008. Rule made absolute in both the petitions.