HALIMA SHAIK YACUB Vs. SRINIVASSA N PAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners challenge by way of this writ petition, the orders dated 24th April, 1985, passed by the Rent Controller and the order dated 24th January, 1986, dismissing the application for condonation of delay, passed by the Administrative Tribunal.

(2.) The petitioners case is that the first respondent has filed an application under section 22(a) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 against the late husband of the first petitioner and father of the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3, on the grounds that the rent was initially paid at the rate of Rs. 6/-, but later on was increased to Rs. 10/- and was not paid by the tenant. During the pendency of the proceedings the original respondent in the proceedings expired on 3rd June, 1982 and therefore, the first respondent moved an application to bring on record the petitioners and in the same application, it has been prayed that leave be granted to sue the petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 through the first petitioner. However, no order was passed by the Rent Controller on the said application. Thereafter, on 11th April, 1983 the respondent No. 1 moved an application to the Rent Controller under section 32(4) of the Act and stated that the original opponent had taken the plea of mundkarship and the said plea had been referred to the Mamlatdar and rejected on the ground that the said original opponent had failed to prove to be a mundkar. An appeal and a revision application had been filed by the original opponent against the said order, but the same had been dismissed. The Rent Controller thereafter gave a notice dated 23rd August, 1983 for the appearance of the petitioners on 12th September, 1983. The said notice was issued to the original opponent, who by that time had already expired. The first petitioner however, filed a reply dated 13th January, 1984, whereby she raised, inter alia, the plea that no arrears of rent were payable and that an inquiry under section 32(3) should be initiated. The Rent Controller heard the matter and brought on record that the first respondent had earlier moved an application under section 32(4) which had been allowed by the Rent Controller; that in appeal to the Administrative Tribunal, the said order had been set aside and the case has been remanded to the Court to decide the question on jurisdiction and thereafter, to proceed according to law. The second respondent held that as the first petitioner had not moved an application within the time stipulated under section 32(3), the application of the first respondent under section 32(4) was to be allowed. This order was passed on 24th April, 1984 and is one of the orders which is impugned in this petition. The said order apparently was not pronounced in open Court and was communicated to the petitioners on 25th June, 1985. Thereafter, the first respondent moved an application to the second respondent stating that the petitioners had not vacated the premises and, as such, to direct them to hand over possession of the suit premises. An order was issued to that effect by the second respondent on 21st October, 1985, which order was served on the petitioners by the Bailiff of the court on 28th October, 1985.

(3.) It is further the case of the petitioners that on receiving the said order for the vacating the premises, the petitioners approached Advocate S. Marathe, who prepared an application and also an affidavit. The respondent No. 2 extended the time to effect the eviction on the basis of the said application and fixed the date of eviction to 9th December, 1985. The petitioners happened to mention this matter to a leader of the Muslim Youth Federation, who immediately sensed the danger and advised them to approach another Advocate. Petitioner No. 1, accordingly approached another Advocate who advised to file the appeal and actually the appeal was filed along with an application for condonation of delay as it was filed beyond the period of limitation. The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay by the impugned order dated 24th January, 1986 and accordingly, the appeal was also not admitted.