PURIFICACAO Vs. HUGO VICENTE DE PERPETUO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This set of civil appeals by the original defendant in the suit was initially admitted on the following substantial question of law : Whether a lease created for commercial purposes under the provisions of the Decree No. 43, 525 dated 7th March, 1961 continues to be heritable under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. However, at the hearing of the appeal, another question was also allowed in respect as to whether the mesne profits can be fixed in excess of the rent which would be payable for the rented premises under the provisions of the Rent Control Act.

(2.) The respondents had filed a suit for eviction against the appellants on the grounds that they are the owners of a house situated at Panaji and that, by an Agreement dated 10th July, 1946, their predecessors in title had given the said house on lease to one Domingos Pedro Xavier Fernandes, late husband of appellant 1 and father of appellant 2. The rented premises consisted of fifteen compartments on the first floor and two on the ground floor of the said building and had been rented for the purpose of running a hotel. The said original lease agreement was renewed from time to time till the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 came into force, and thereafter, the said Domingos became a statutory tenant of the premises. He came to die on 12th July, 1978, leaving behind appellants 1 and 2 and others as his heirs and legal representatives. According to the plaintiffs/respondents herein, the appellants entered into possession of the rented premises after the death of the said Domingos, though they had not right to occupy it, as the lease was for non-residential purposes. The occupation of the premises, by them is, therefore, illegal and they are mere trespassers. The respondents, therefore, filed the suit praying that the appellants be ordered to vacate the rented premises and to give possession thereof to the plaintiffs/respondents. They further prayed that the appellants be ordered to pay them mesne profits at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month from the date of their illegal occupation till vacant possession of the premises is given to the plaintiffs/respondents.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the appellants on the ground that they were living with the deceased Domingos as members of his family, and as such, they had inherited the tenancy rights in respect of the suit premises. In addition, the appellants submitted that the plaintiffs had refused to accept the rents sent to them by money order and that, in any event, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the case because under the provisions of the said Act, only the Rent Controller is vested with jurisdiction to order the eviction of a tenant.