SHAIK IBRAHIM SHAIK MAHAMAD Vs. JOAO DE ANDRADE E SOUZA, RESIDING AT CORTE DE OITEIRO (EMIDIO GARCIA RD ) PANAJI-GOA; PRAKASH CHANDER, CONTROLLER, GOA NORTH DIVISION, PANAJI - GOA; ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, GOA, DAMAN AND DIU, PANAJI - GOA; R K BATTA; U D SHARMA, NOS 4 AND 5 BEING MEMBER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal by a tenant is against the order of Couto J., rejecting in limini his Special Civil Application No. 161 of 1983 by an order dated 18th November 1983, challenging the validity of the order of the Administrative Tribunal of Goa, Daman and Diu, dated 24th August, 1983 dismissing his Eviction Appeal No.51 of 1978 against the Judgment and Order of the Rent Controller, Goa North Division, Panaji, dated 17th August, 1978 in Case No. Rent 29 of 1976 allowing the 1st Respondent-Landlord's application for eviction of the appellant for non-payment of rent under Section 22(2)(a) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968, and directing the appellant-tenant to put the 1st respondent-landlord in vacant possession of the suit premises within three months from the date of the order.

(2.) The whole question in this appeal turns on the interpretation of certain sections of the Goa, Daman & Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Control Act"). However for the purpose of appreciating the contentions to both the sides, a few basic facts may be stated.

(3.) On 4th May 1976 the 1st Respondent landlord made an application to the Rent Controller being Eviction Application No.29 of 1976 for evicting the appellant-tenant on the ground of default of payment till August, 1974. It may be stated only at this stage that after the application was filed but before the written statement was put in, the Rent Control Act came to be amended on 27th May, 1976 by adding new sub-sec.(3), deleting proviso to sub-sec.(2) and replacing it by sub-sec.(4) with certain alteration. It is not disputed that on 2nd June, 1976 he applied for depositing the arrears of rent and on 7th June, 1976 he applied for a Challan to deposit the arrears of rent due from September 1974; and also put in a written statement challenging in para (2) thereof the eviction on the ground of failure to issue notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act before instituting the proceedings. In para 4 of the written statement the tenant also showed a cause for his failure to pay the rent and showed his willingness and readiness to deposit the arrears of amount at any time. In para 5 of the written statement the tenant alleged that the landlord-1st respondent had no cause of action and the application was liable to be dismissed. On 1st July, 1976 the appellant-tenant deposited all the arrears of rent with the Rent Controller Sand continued to deposit the arrears of rent every month thereafter.