SATYA VIJAY ANNA TANDEL Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petition has been filed by the original tenant in the following circumstances :

(2.) THE original petitioner-tenant had taken a house bearing Municipal Registration No. 71, on monthly rent owned by the respondent. This was in the year 1964. The rent was Rs. 80/- per month till about March 1973 and, thereafter, it was increased to Rs. 110/- per month from April 1973. Some time in July 1976 the original petitioner received from the Court of the Rent Controller, South Goa, a notice in Case No. 81 of 1976 in the matter of an eviction application filed by three persons as plaintiffs. Amongst them was one Candida Pinto who is presently respondent No. 3 in this petition. The allegation was that the petitioner had neglected to pay the rent of the premises from April 1976 to August 1976 amounting to Rs. 400/- and that the applicants require the said premises for their bonafide personal use and occupation. In the said application the said respondent No. 3 filed an affidavit dated November 16, 1976 in which she stated that the said eviction proceedings had been instituted without her consent. She also gave evidence in these proceedings. It appears that in the said proceedings she admitted the receipt of rent from the original petitioner upto March 1981. That is how the said application was dismissed by an order dated September 17, 1983.

(3.) HOWEVER , in May 1984, respondent Nos. 3 and 4 made an application dated May 15, 1984, purporting to be an application under Section 32(4) of the Act on an allegation that the application made by the petitioner in March 1984 was 9 days after the prescribed period of limitation. A notice was issued on this application to the petitioner. The Rent Controller heard the parties and by his order dated August 10, 1984, came to the conclusion that the arrears deposited were 9 days beyond the prescribed period of thirty days and that the petitioner had not shown any sufficient cause as to why the deposit was not made in time. Accordingly he stopped all further proceedings and an order of eviction of the petitioner was passed. It was pointed out that as on that date the petitioner was not in arrears of rent.