(1.) APPELLANT is original respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 are original applicants. Respondents 1 and 2 filed an application for eviction of the appellant herein on the ground that the appellant was in arrears of rent. By judgment dated 31st October 1985, the Rent Controller held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit under sub-section (3) of section 22 of the Rent Control Act and, therefore, no order of eviction could be passed on the ground sought in the application dated 19th March 1985. Respondents 1 and 2 aggrieved by the order preferred a review before the Rent Controller. The said review was dismissed by order of 15th July 1987. The Rent Controller gave a finding that he could not invoke Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and assume to himself the power of review. In these circumstances, he held that the application for review fails. Apart from that he also appreciated the matter on merits and dismissed the review application.
(2.) AGGRIEVED, the respondents 1 and 2 preferred an appeal to the Administrative Tribunal which was numbered as Eviction Appeal No. 53 of 1987. Before the Tribunal it was contended that after service of the notice of the appeal on the appellant, he had failed to deposit the rent as contemplated under section 32 of the Rent Act and, therefore, he should be evicted under section 32 (4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. The appellant contended that the appeal was not maintainable. It was also contended that he was advised that as the appeal was incompetent there was no question of depositing the arrears of rent in the Court. The Tribunal found favour with the respondents 1 and 2 and decreed the appeal against the appellant by its order dated 21st June 1990.
(3.) THE appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court which was numbered as Writ Petition No. 226 of 1990/. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant/petitioner also contended that no order could be passed as the order of the Rent Controller dated 31st October 1985 and the appeal preferred beyond limitation was incompetent. The learned Single Judge in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgments purported to reject the said contention and dismissed the petition. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal.