Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal by the plaintiff, Maria Manuela Piedade Bernadete Tereza Quiteria Moniz, against the judgment of the First Appellate Court (FAC) dated 09.09.2003, which dismissed her suit for eviction against the defendant, Vassant Shet Shirodkar. The plaintiff's mother initially entered into an agreement with the defendant on 01.06.1981, allowing him to occupy six rooms in her house for a monthly compensation of Rs.200. The agreement was for eleven months, renewable by mutual consent. After the mother's death, the plaintiff and the defendant executed a series of agreements: dated 01.03.1984, 01.02.1985, 01.11.1988, 01.10.1989, and finally 01.09.1990. Under these agreements, the defendant occupied three rooms. All agreements except the last one referred to the parties as 'owner' and 'occupant' and prohibited sub-letting. The last agreement dated 01.09.1990 expressly stated that the premises were being permitted for use on a leave and license basis for eleven months, and that it would not create any tenancy or lease. The plaintiff filed a suit for eviction after the defendant failed to vacate upon expiry of the last agreement. The trial court decreed the suit, but the FAC dismissed it, holding that the defendant had become a tenant under the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. The High Court allowed the second appeal, setting aside the FAC's judgment and restoring the trial court's decree. The court held that the relationship was that of licensor and licensee, not landlord and tenant, based on the intention of the parties as reflected in the agreements. The court noted that the agreements were for short durations, the defendant was referred to as an 'occupant', and the last agreement explicitly stated it was a license. The court also found that the defendant did not acquire the status of a tenant under the Act because the agreements did not create a lease. The court directed the defendant to vacate the premises within three months.
Headnote
A) Property Law - License vs. Tenancy - Successive Short-Term Agreements - Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, Sections 2(21) and 2(22) - The court examined whether the defendant, who occupied premises under a series of eleven-month agreements, was a licensee or a tenant. The court held that the intention of the parties, as evidenced by the agreements, was to create a license, not a tenancy, and the defendant did not acquire the status of a tenant under the Act. The court emphasized that the agreements consistently referred to the defendant as an 'occupant' and the plaintiff as 'owner', and the last agreement expressly stated it was a leave and license arrangement. (Paras 2-10) B) Property Law - Eviction - License Revocation - Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 - The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to evict the defendant as a licensee whose license had been revoked by the termination of the agreement. The court found that the defendant's continued occupation after the expiry of the last agreement was unauthorized, and the plaintiff's suit for eviction was maintainable. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant under successive agreements was that of licensor-licensee or landlord-tenant, and whether the defendant acquired the status of a tenant under the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment of the First Appellate Court, and restored the trial court's decree of eviction. The defendant was directed to vacate the premises within three months.
Law Points
- License vs. Tenancy
- Successive agreements
- Intention of parties
- Goa Rent Control Act
- Section 2(21) of the Goa
- Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease
- Rent and Eviction) Control Act
- 1968
- Section 2(22) of the Goa
