RAMESH LAXMAN PANGAM Vs. MANUEL DOMINGO FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises from the judgment and order dated 15th March, 1995 passed in Eviction Appeal No. 29/91 by the Administrative Tribunal. By the impugned order, the tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 2nd July, 1990 by the Additional Rent Controller, Mapusa in Case No. RENT/17/85. By the said order, the Additional Rent Controller had allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under section 32 (4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the said Act) and the proceedings in the said Rent case were ordered to be stopped and the petitioner was directed to put the respondent No. 1 in possession of the suit premises within one month from the date of service of the order.

(2.) THE facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the respondent No. 1 herein filed eviction proceedings against the petitioner by an application dated 12-3-1985 on the ground of default in payment of rent for the period from 1-7-69 to 28-2-85 and secondly, on the ground of requirement of the premises for personal occupation. The Notice of the application for eviction was served upon the petitioner on 3-4-1985. The first date of hearing of the application was fixed on 24-4-85, on which day the petitioner filed an application stating that though the amount of arrears of rent claimed was incorrect, he was willing to deposit the same as he was a busy man and was not staying in Panaji and therefore had no time of litigation. He also expressed his willingness to deposit the cost of the application which could be determined by the Court. He further expressed his readiness and willingness to deposit Rs. 12/- per month towards the subsequent rent which would become due. The petitioner accordingly deposited the said amount of Rs. 2211/- for the period from 1st July, 1969 till 31st January, 1985. However, thereafter the respondent noticed that the rent was not deposited as required under the law and, therefore, filed an application dated 21-1-87 under section 32 (4) of the said Act. In the said application it was stated that the rent for the months from April, 1985 to November, 1986 amounting to Rs. 240/- was deposited only on 26-9-86 and the same was therefore not valid and in accordance with the provisions of law and therefore action was required to be taken in terms of section 32 (4) of the said Act. Pursuant to the service of notice of the said application, the petitioner replied to the same denying the fact that the petitioner was irregular in depositing the arrears of rent and that the chalans from the record disclosed that the petitioner had deposited the arrears of rent. It was submitted by the petitioner that the very fact that the respondent had withdrawn the deposited amount from time to time, disclosed that the respondent had acquiesced to the delay in depositing the rent by the petitioner and therefore the respondent was estopped from challenging the validity of the deposit.

(3.) THE Additional Rent Controller, after bearing the parties, held that the petitioner had not shown any sufficient cause for not stopping the proceedings and therefore ordered the stopping of proceedings and ordered that the possession of the suit premises be delivered to the respondent. The appeal against the same by the petitioner was not fruitful and the tribunal also confirmed the findings arrived at by the Additional Rent Controller.