Niti/Amrut v. NONE

Judgment

(Per M.S. Sonak, J.)

#1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

#2. The learned Counsel for the parties agree that a common judgment and order can dispose of these three petitions since they raise substantially common issues of Law.

#3. In all these petitions, the principal challenge is to the provision in Section 23 of the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (Rent Control Act) to the extent the said provision prohibits landlords from securing eviction of their tenants from non- residential buildings on the ground of bonafide need for personal occupation. 7th February 2023 WP-726-2017,377-2019,811-2019.DOC

#4. The Petitioner, in Writ Petition No.377 of 2019, has urged the striking down of the entire Rent Control Act or in the alternate Sections 12 to 16, 18, 21, 22, 33 and Section 2(p) of the Rent Control Act, in addition to the challenge to Section 23 of the Rent Control Act. However, in our Judgment, the challenges to the entire Rent Control Act or the provisions other than Section 23 of the Rent Control Act are presently academic. Therefore, we propose only to consider the issue of the constitutional validity of Section 23 of the Rent Control Act and not the other challenges left open for examination in appropriate cases.

#5. In Writ Petition No. 726 of 2017, the Petitioner's application for eviction of Respondent No.2 from the commercial premises let out to him on the grounds of the bonafide requirement was dismissed by the trial Court and such dismissal was upheld by the First Appellate Court. The dismissal was because Section 23 of the Rent Control Act does not permit a landlord to seek eviction of his tenant from the commercial premises on the ground of bonafide requirement. Hence, the petition to question the constitutional validity of Section 23 of the Goa Rent Control Act.

#6. In Writ Petition No.811 of 2019, the trial Court did order the eviction of Respondent No.1 – the tenant, from the commercial premises on the ground of Petitioner's bonafide requirement. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the trial Court by holding 7th February 2023 WP-726-2017,377-2019,811-2019.DOC that Section 23 does not apply to commercial premises. Hence, Writ Petition No.811 of 2019 to challenge the validity of Section 23 of the Rent Control Act.

#7. In Writ Petition No.377 of 2019, the Petitioner has instituted the proceedings for eviction of Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 (Tenants) from the commercial premises on the ground of bonafide requirement. The proceedings are pending, but the Petitioner apprehends that such proceedings would fail given the provisions of Section 23 of the Rent Control Act and the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Evaristo Esteneslaoc Rodrigues & Ors. V/s. Vaman Anant

Parab Mahambrey & Ors.1. Hence, the Writ Petition No.377 of 2019 questioning inter alia the constitutional validity of Section 23 of the Rent Control Act.

#8. At the outset, Mr J. E. Coelho Pereira and Mr Rui Alberto Gomes Pereira submitted that the issue of the constitutionality of identical provisions stands answered in the Petitioners' favour by several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, including but not restricted to Gian Devi Anand V/s. Jeevan Kumar & Ors.2, Harbilas Rai Bansal V/s. State of Punjab & Anr.3, Rakesh Vij V/s. Dr. Raminder Pal Singh & Ors.4, Satyawati Sharma (dead) by