USHA P. KUVELKAR AND ORS. versus RAVINDRA SUBRAI DALVI

Citation: [2007] 12 S.C.R. 324 · Decided: 20-11-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
USHA P. KUVELKAR AND ORS. 
v. 
RA VINDRA SUBRAI DAL VI 
NOVEMBER 20, 2007 
B 
[G.P. MATHUR AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.) 
Rent Control and Eviction: 
c 
Goa Daman and Diu Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control 
Act, 1968-s. 23(1)(a){i) and 23A(3)--Eviction petition under 
s.23(1)(a){i) by Government servant on the ground of bonafide 
personal need-On introduction of s. 23A( 3) amendment application 
filed seeking eviction under s.23A(3) and also on subsequent facts of 
D illness of landlord and his wife-Eviction decree by Authorities below-
Set aside by High Court without giving any reasons and matter remitted 
back-On appeal, held: Authorities below held that the bonafide 
personal need of landlord was proved-ARC considered s.23A(3) 
extensively and correctly gave finding thats. 23A(3) was operative and 
E effective from 22. 2.1988 and was applicable to pending proceedings-
Landlord-Government servant had retired from service on 31. 5.1983 
and had no house where the suit premises existed-Thus, s. 23A(3) is 
applicable to the instant proceedings-Also. death of landlord during 
the pendency of litigation would not make difference as landlord 
F sought possession for himself and also his family members-Thus, 
orders of Authorities below upheld. 
Original landlord filed eviction petition against the respondent-
tenant on the ground of his own bonafide personal need and also of his 
G family members. During pendency of the eviction petition, landlord and 
his wife started suffering from ailments for which they required 
continuous treatment of the doctor in Panaji which was away from his 
own house in Ponda city. Also, there was amendment to the Act bys. 
23A of the Goa Daman & Diu Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control 
H 
324 
; . 
--{ 
USHA P. KUVELKAR v. RA VINDRA SUBRAI DAL VI 
325 
Act, 1968 which came into force from 22.2.1988. In view of the A 
amendment, landlord who was an employee of the State Government 
and had duly retired and required premises for his bonafide occupation 
or any member of his family could seek the eviction. The present 
landlord being retired Government servant, having no house at Panaji 
filed an amendment application also raising the additional ground in view B 
of the amendment in Section 23 A. Both the Additional Rent Controller 
and the Appellate Authority allowed the application under section 
23(1)(a)(i) as also section 23A(3) of the Act holding the need of the 
landlord to be bonqfide. The Respondent filed a revision petition against 
the orders of Additional Rent Controller and Writ Petition against the C 
orders of Administrative Tribunal. The High Court set aside the orders 
of the authorities below and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication. 
During pendency of the litigation the landlord expired. Hence the present 
appeal by the legal heirs of the landlord. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The findings of the Additional Rent Controller as also 
the Tribunal on the bonafide need of the landlord are correct and the 
High Court erred in setting aside the concurrent findings of fact that 
D 
too without giving any reasons worth the name. Thus, theJudgmentof E 
High Court is set aside and that of the Additional Rent Controller and 
the Administrative Tribunal are restored. 
[Paras 10 and 13] [332-H; 333-A; 336-C) 
2.1. The findings of the High Court that the order of Additional F 
Rent Controller is cursory and sketchy and that Additional Rent 
Controller has nottaken into account various aspects pertaining to the 
dispute cannot be concurred with. The order of Additional Rent 
Controller suggests that he not only meticulously referred to the 
pleadings of the parties in detail but discussed the whole evidence G 
whereafter he recorded finding to the effect that the landlord was 
suffering from heart problem and his wife was suffering from 
Rheumatoid disease that required the medical treatment from the doctor 
at Panaji and that for that purpose they were required to live at Panaji 
instead of taking stress and strain of traveling from Ponda to Panaji. H 
326 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 12 S.C.R. 
A Furthermore, the applicant was a Govemrr. nt servant having retired 
from service in 1983 and he was not having any residential 
accommodation in or around Panaji City. Thus, the Additional Rent 
Controller has given a proper finding of fact under Section 23(1 )(a)(i) 
of the Goa Daman & Diu Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control 
B Act, 1968. Administrative 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.