JOSE FILIPE MESQUITA Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to challenge the Judgment and Order dated 15th July, 1994 passed in Eviction Appeal No.36/92 by the Administrative Tribunal. THE Tribunal while allowing the said appeal, set aside the Order of the Additional Rent Controller passed on 19th October, 1992 in Case No. RENT/arc/3/92. THE Addl. Rent Controller, by its Order, had allowed the application dated 28.4.92 filed by the petitioner under Section 32 (4) of the Rent Control Act and ordered stoppage of proceedings with the direction to the respondent to hand over possession of the suit premises to the petitioner within thirty days from the date of the Order.

(2.) THE facts in brief relevant for the decision are that on 15.2.92 the petitioner herein filed an application for eviction of the original respondent No.3 from the suit premises comprising of one hall, one room, passage and gallery in front of the petitioner's house situated at D. B. Bandodkar Road, Cample, Panaji, on the ground of sub-letting. THE notice of the said application was received by the original respondent No.3 on 18.3.92. THE first date of appearance before the Addl. Rent Controller was 6th April, 1992 on which day the original respondent No.3 appeared in person and filed an application for adjournment. Since the original respondent No.3 had not deposited the arrears of rent within thirty days from the date of service of notice, an application was filed by the petitioner under Section 32 (4) before the Addl. Rent Controller on 28.4.1992, notice of which was issued to the respondent on 8.5.92 and was received by him on 13.5.92. THEreafter, the original respondent No.2 filed an application seeking leave of the Addl. Rent Controller to deposit all arrears of rent. THE said application was filed on 27.5.92. THE Addl. Rent Controller, after hearing the parties, held that the respondent No.3 had failed to show sufficient cause for not stopping the proceedings and therefore while allowing the application dated 28.4.92 ordered stoppage of proceedings and delivery of possession of the suit premises to the petitioner. THE same was challenged by the original respondent No.3 before the Administrative Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal set aside the Order of the Addl. Rent Controller which was passed on 19.10.92.

(3.) THE Tribunal, in the impugned judgment however placing reliance upon the decision in the matter of Satyavijay Anna Tandel and another v. THE Administrative Tribunal of Goa, Daman and Diu & 3 Others reported in 1992 G. L. T. 323 has held that the provisions contained in Section 32 (4) being in the nature of in terrorem and original respondent No.3 being a willful defaulter on the ground that respondent No.3 had filed an application for deposit of rent only on 27.5.92, set aside the Judgment of the Addl. Rent Controller. THE tribunal has no where considered the point as to whether the materials on record disclose that the original respondent No.3 was persistent defaulter or that he was a cantankerous contestant or not, while interfering in the order of the Addl. Rent Controller wherein the Controller had held that there was no sufficient cause shown by the respondent No.3 for non-stopping of the proceedings. THErefore, in the absence of proper analysis of the material on record, the Tribunal having interfered with the order of the Addl. Rent Controller, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. Moreover, at the same time it has been submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondents that there being no application of mind by the Tribunal to the point as to whether the materials on record disclose persistent default on the part of the original respondent No.3 or as to whether the original respondent No.3 was a cantankerous contestant, the only course open in this petition is to set aside the impugned judgment passed by the Administrative Tribunal and to remand the matter to the Tribunal to decide the matter afresh, taking into consideration the provisions contained in Section 32 (4) of the Rent Act and all the decisions in respect thereof by this Court including the decision in the matter of Datta Anant Ghadi v. Smt. Guilhermina Silveira and Ors. reported in 2000 (1) G. L. T. 39. Needless to say that considering the matter relates to the year 1992, the Tribunal shall make every endeavour to expedite the hearing and shall dispose of the same within a period of six months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court.