CHANDRAKANT GOVIND NAIK Vs. SUGENIA DIAS E SOUZA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner at whose instance this Civil Rule has been issued is a tenant in respect of one room in the ground floor of a building situated on 31st Juary Road, Panjim, belonging to respondents Nos.1 and 2. On 26-5-1976, the aforesaid two respondents applied to the Controller, North Goa Division, hereinafter referred to as "the Controller" for an order of eviction of the petitioner on two grounds (i), arrears of rent and (ii) sub-letting of the room, under the provisions of S.22(2) (a) and (b) (i) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Act". The petitioner was served with the notice of the proceedings on 2-6-1976 and opposed the application by a written statement dated 17-6-1976.

(2.) By his order dated 29-11-1976, the Controller held that the petitioner had failed to show cause as to why further proceedings should not be stopped and passed an order under sub-section (4) of S.32 of the Rent Act directing the petitioner to handover vacant possesson of the room to respondents Nos.1 and 2. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Administrative Tribunal. By order dated 13-6-1977, the Tribunal dismissed the petitioner s appeal.

(3.) Mr. Kakodkar, learned advocate for the petitioner has in the first place submitted that remittance of rent by the tenant not being prohibited under S.32(1) of the Rent Act, the learned Controller committed a manifest error of law in holding that if a landlord refuses to accept rent tendered by the tenant (through M.O.) during the pendency of the proceedings for eviction, the tenant was bound to deposit the same with the Controller. His second submission is that S.32(4) is unconstitutional.