DATTA ANANT GHADI Vs. GUILHERMINA SILVEIRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition arises from the judgment and order dated 22-11-90 passed in Eviction Appeal No. 13/88 by the Administrative Tribunal. By the said order, the appeal of the petitioner against order dated 26-4-88 of the Additional Rent Controller, Ponda, Sub-Division, Ponda was dismissed. The Rent Controller on his part had allowed the application filed by the respondent under section 32 (4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the said Act) for stopping all proceedings in eviction proceedings and to direct the petitioner to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent.

(2.) THE undisputed facts in brief are that the petitioner is the tenant in respect of the premises bearing house No. 267 situated in the property known as "tank alias Pissem" situated in the village of Candola belonging to the respondent No. 1. The respondent No. 1 herein filed an application for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent. As the jurisdiction to entertain the said application, at the relevant time vested in the Additional Rent Controller at Margao, the same was registered in the office of the Additional Rent Controller, Margao as Case No. BLDG/78/arc-III/87. The notice in respect of the said application was received by the petitioner on 10-7-87. As per the said notice, the petitioner was required to appear before the Additional Rent Controller at Margao to answer the said application on 21st August, 1987. Meanwhile, the jurisdiction to deal with the matter arising under the said Act within the taluka of Ponda was assigned to the Additional Rent Controller at Ponda and consequently all the cases arising under the said Act from the taluka of Ponda were assigned to the Additional Rent Controller at Ponda including the case in hand as the same was in relation to the premises situated at Candola which lies in the taluka of Ponda. Such assignment was made consequent to the Notification No. 16/15/87-RD dated 3-8-1987 which came into force from 16-8-87. Consequent to the assignment of the matter in question to the Additional Rent Controller at Ponda, necessary notice was issued to the petitioner for his appearance before the said authority and the same was received by the petitioner on 7-11-87, consequent to which the petitioner was required to appear before the said authority on 2nd December, 1987. On the very day i. e. on 2nd December, 1987, the petitioner filed an application seeking leave of the Additional Rent Controller to deposit all the arrears of rent as claimed by the respondents and the same was allowed and accordingly the amount was deposited by the petitioner.

(3.) SOME more facts which are relevant for the decision and which are disclosed from the records are that the petitioner, pursuant to the receipt of a copy of the application dated 2-12-87 filed by respondent No. 1 under section 32 (4) of the said Act, had filed a reply stating therein that he had approached the office of the Additional Rent Controller at Margao on 21st July as well as 22nd July of the year 1987 pursuant to the receipt of the notice of the Additional Rent Controller at Margao in relation to the application for eviction filed by the respondent No. 1 herein and on both the occasions he had noticed that the Presiding Officer of the Court of the Additional Rent Controller was not available in the office and the Clerk of the Court had informed the petitioner that in view of the transfer of jurisdiction to the Additional Rent Controller at Ponda to deal with the matters relating to the cases in the taluka of Ponda, his case would be transferred to Ponda and necessary notice would be received by the petitioner from the Additional Rent Controller at Ponda and therefore the rent amount could be deposited in the said office of the Additional Rent Controller at Ponda. The petitioner had also categorically stated that prior to institution of the eviction proceedings against the petitioner on the ground of non-payment of rent the respondent/landlord had not issued any notice as is otherwise required to be issued to a tenant claiming the arrears of rent and giving him opportunity to pay the same within thirty days from the receipt of such notice and proceedings were instituted without complying with the mandatory provisions of section 22 (2) (a) of the said Act and, therefore, the entire proceedings are ab initio bad in law.