Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 539 (BOM)

Kashinath Babli Parab v. Antonio Mariano Antao

2008-04-10

S.A.BOBDE

body2008
BOBDE S.A., J.: - Rule in both the Petitions. (Returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2. 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 per-taining to the existence of a bona fide need of the premises by the respondents-landlords. This contention is correct. Indeed, the Tri- bunal has observed vide paragraph 14 (page 4 No. 97 of Writ Petition No. 39 of 2007) that: "..... there is no question of bonajide requirement under section 23(1 )(a)(i) of the Act..." n This observation is not in accordance e with law. It is settled law vide (Dr. Mulla a Malhandas Khemani, since deceased by his T heir 1 (A) Mrs. Sundeera Mulo KhemaniVs. Shri " Avelino Gregorio D'souza, since deceased, rep- 0 resented by his legal representatives 1 (a) Mrs. Blarf::he D'souza and ors, 2000(1) Goa L.T. 154 that the need of the landlord must be b bona fide. Indeed, that is the requirement of n section 25 of The Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, which reads as follows: "25. Controller to decide right to possession.- The Controller shall. if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord under section 23 is bona fide, make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on such datc 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." 3. In this view of the matter, though it is contended by Mr. 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 bona fide, 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 bona fides arise where the landlords seek eviction under section 23. 4. 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 fresh 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. Rule made absolute.