PANAJI
The Bombay High Court at Goa on Tuesday dismissed a petition challenging an eviction order in a case that dates back to the year 1983 when a landlady, Ana Rosalina D’Souza who has since passed away, sought to evict her tenant Gracy D’Souza on grounds that only two rooms towards the western side along with the W.C. and bathroom are in possession of the landlords whereas the remaining house bearing No. E/99/9 at Mapusa, Goa was leased out to the Respondent/Tenant on a direct contract of 11 months from 01.07.1979.
So long did the case drag on that not only did the landlady expire, her son, who was an officer in the Indian Army too passed away during the pendency of the petition.
The had opposed her eviction by filing a written statement and denied the additional requirement of the landlady arguing that the landlady never came down to stay in the suit house and two rooms which were in her possession were also not occupied by the landlady during her visit to Goa.
“The husband of the landlady has brought property and house at Thivim, Bardez, Goa and the same could be occupied by the said landlady along with her husband and other family members,” the tenant argued saying that the eviction is filed on flimsy grounds.
After recording evidence of the landlady and other witnesses, the Rent Controller vide its judgment dated 28.03.1996 accepted the contentions of the landlady and directed the tenant to vacate and put the landlady in possession of the suit premises within three months. The Rent Controller after considering the above evidence on record came to the conclusion that the need of the landlady was genuine for her and her family members and that the existing area in her possession was not sufficient only to cater for her bonafide need.
The tenant then filed an Appeal before the Administrative Tribunal which was dismissed by order dated 29.05.2012, accepting the contentions of the landlady and also the observations of the Rent Controller.
The High Court ruled in the landlady’s favour.
“The landlady specifically pleaded in the year 1983 itself that the premises were required for herself, her husband and other family members, which include the wife and children of Melville (landlady’s son) since at that time, Melville was serving as Officer and was posted at different places from time to time. The evidence of the landlady specifically proves that the two rooms in her possession were having access through the living room which is in the possession of the tenant and the same would not be sufficient for herself and her family members, has been established through evidence. The tenant admitted that the landlady had only two rooms in her possession. Thus, for the landlady along with her husband and for the occupation of the other family members such a portion of two rooms was insufficient. There is no other evidence to show that the need of the landlady was not at all bonafide. It is a fact that the landlady and her husband expired during the pendency of the proceedings. However, the need for her family members including Melville and his family subsists. Even after the death of Melvile, the need for the premises for the family members subsist and cannot be considered as non-existence. It would be absurd to demand further evidence in anticipation of the death of the members of the family of the landlady,” the High Court said while dismissing the challenge to the eviction.
“The accommodation of Melville in New Delhi has no relevance at all to his need to stay in Goa. Since the litigation is prolonged for such a long period, purchasing some different accommodations in some different States cannot extinguish the claim of bonafide need. The landlady and her family members being the owners of the suit premises would be certainly entitled to occupy the suit house by showing their bonafide need,” the High Court also said.
