R N LOTLIKAR Vs. KASHINATH GHANASHYAM SINAI KAKODKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners challenge in this writ petition the judgments dated 30th April, 1981, and 3rd March, 1984, passed by the Rent Controller, Margao, and the Administrative Tribunal, Panaji, respectively, stopping the eviction proceedings instituted against them and directing them to put the landlord in possession of the rented premises within 30 days from the first order.

(2.) Broadly, the relevant facts are that the first petitioner is a partnership firm which is occupying a premises belonging to the first respondent. On 17th November, 1979, the said respondent filed an application for eviction before the Rent Controller, South Goa, on the ground of non-payment of rents from June 1978 till the date of filing of the application i.e. till 17th November, 1979, at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month. The petitioners were served with a copy of the application on 22nd March, 1980 in the Court itself and moved an application on 24th April, 1980, under section 32(3) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Building (Lease, Rent, and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") praying that the monthly rent was of Rs. 175/- and, therefore, the said rent should be fixed after an inquiry. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 moved an application for stopping the proceedings and for being put in possession of the rented premises. The petitioners filed their reply on 29th January, 1981, taking the stand that they had already sought an inquiry under section 32(3) and, therefore, no application under section 32(4) was maintainable. However, by the impugned order dated 30th April, 1981, the Rent Controller, South Goa, allowed the application of the first respondent and accordingly, stayed all further proceedings and directed the petitioners to put the first respondent in peaceful and vacant possession of the suit premises within 30 days from the date of receipt of the said order. The petitioners preferred an appeal to the Administrative Tribunal of Goa, Daman and Diu on 19-6-1981. This appeal was, however, dismissed by the impugned judgment dated 3rd March, 1984.

(3.) The petitioners challenge the aforesaid judgments of the Rent Controllers and the Administrative Tribunal, mainly on four grounds. In the first place, it is their case that the order of the Administrative Tribunal is illegal, null and void inasmuch as the Tribunal is functioning without a Chairman and as such, there can be no properly constituted Tribunal without a Chairman as required by the provisions of the Administrative Tribunal Act read with the provisions of the Act. Secondly, it is the case of the petitioners that if proceedings are taken up on the basis of section 22(2)(a) of the Act, then the provisions of the section 32(4) will not apply. Thirdly, the petitioners contended that both the Rent controller as well as the Administrative Tribunal failed to consider their case under section 32-(A), particularly that a sufficient cause has been shown by them in order that proceedings should not be stopped and they should not be order to give vacant possession of the rented premises to the first respondent. Finally, the petitioners submitted that the date of filling the written statement and the date for showing cause under section, 32(3) are district for the purpose of depositing the rent under section 32(2) read with rule of the Goa, Daman and Building (Leased, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1969 (hereinafter to as "the Rules").