KISANRAI V GAONKAR Vs. RAJENDRA N DHARWADKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises from the judgment dated 19th April, 1991 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Eviction Appeal No. 29/90. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 5-4-90 of the Additional Rent Controller of Panaji in Rent Case No. A. R. C. /2/84. By the said order dated 5-4-90, the Additional Rent Controller had directed the petitioner to vacate the suit premises and hand over the vacant possession thereof to the respondent No. 1 landlord within three months from the date of the order. The said order was passed in the proceedings under section 32 (4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ).

(2.) THE facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the petitioner is a tenant in respect of Flat No. 6 on the third floor of Karim Building situated at St. Inez, Panaji and that the respondent No. 1 is the landlord in respect thereof. The petitioner was inducted as the tenant in respect of the said premises by Lease Deed dated 1-5-1978. The monthly rent was agreed to be Rs. 300/ -. On account of need of the suit Flat for personal occupation, the respondent initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner, by filing an application dated 9-1-84 in the Court of Rent Controller at Panaji. Though the petitioner was duly served with the notice of the application for eviction, the respondent found that the petitioner had neither paid nor deposited the rent of the suit premises with effect from November, 1983 and therefore by an application dated 30th September, 1988 under section 32 (4) of the said Act, the respondent No. 1 requested the Rent Controller to stop the proceedings and to direct the petitioner to hand over possession of the suit Flat to the respondent. On receipt of the notice of the said application, the petitioner contended that he used to entrust on the first day of every month the monthly rent of Rs. 300/- in the hands of his employee by name Ashok Teggi and the latter used to deposit the amount of rent in the Court of Rent Controller in the said eviction proceedings and the petitioner used to get this fact confirmed orally from the said employee. It was only on receipt of the notice regarding non-deposit of the rent that on perusal of the records, he found that the amount of rent though was regularly entrusted with the said employee, it was not deposited in time on number of occasions in the Court of Rent Controller by the said employee. The petitioner reposed total faith in his employee and bona fide believed that the rent was being paid on 1st of every month by the said employee. According to the petitioner that was a sufficient cause for non-stopping of the proceedings and allowing him to contest the same on merits.

(3.) THE impugned judgment has been challenged mainly on two counts. One that material evidence has been totally ignored by both the authorities below while deciding the matter and the material evidence is in the form of an affidavit of one Ashok Teggi, employee of the petitioner and secondly, that both the authorities below have failed to consider that the matter was required to be considered, from the point of view of finding out whether there was sufficient cause shown for non-stopping of the proceedings and not merely whether there was sufficient cause for delay in depositing or paying the rent while dealing with the proceedings under section 32 (4) of the said Act.