K M BROS Vs. AIXABI SHAIKH KARIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant in this Letters patent appeal challenges the orders of the courts below passed under section 32 (4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (for short the Rent Control Act ). Briefly the facts are that the appellant is a tenant in one of the shops in the buildings owned by the respondent No. 1. The lease of the shop was created in his favour in the year 1975 on a monthly rent of Rs. 150. 00. According to the landlord/respondent No. 1, the appellant has created a sub-lease in October, 1981 in respect of the shop in favour of one Shri Adpekar. A notice was, therefore, sent to the appellant by the landlord on 21-10-1981 terminating his tenancy. the appellant/tenant replied to the said notice dated 21-10-1981 by his reply dated 11-11-1981. In his reply the appellant stated that the respondent No. 1 landlord stopped accepting rent from him since August 1981. He, therefore, sent the rent to him for the month of August 1981 by money order which the landlord refused to accept. Further, according to him, in September 81 the rent for August and September 81 was sent by money order to the respondent No. 1 by him, but the respondent No. 1 landlord refused to accept the same also. Subsequently again the appellant sent the rent to the respondent No. 1 for the months of August, September and October 81 by cheque which was also returned back to the appellant.

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 landlord filed an application on 9-12-1981 before the Rent Controller for eviction of the appellant from the suit premises. The notice of the said application was served upon the appellant on 16-1-1982. The appellant thereafter tendered the rent for the month of January 82 by money order sent on 4-2-1982, but the same was also refused by the respondent No. 1 landlord on 13-2-1982. The appellant thereafter filed an application on 19-2-1982 for deposit of the whole of the rent. The appellant also actually deposited the arrears of rent till the date of the application and according to the appellant, he thereafter continued to deposit the rent for every month in the trial Court.

(3.) ON 1-3-1982 the respondent No. 1 landlord filed an application under section 32 (4) of the Rent Control Act for stopping all further proceedings and for making an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the shop on the ground that after the service of the notice on 16-1-1982 the appellant failed to deposit all arrears of rent within a period of one month from the date of service as required by section 32 (2) of the Rent Control Act read with Rule 7 of the rules framed thereunder.