SMT. LEELAVATI SAHADEV GOVEKAR Vs. VAIKUNTH VINAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter arises under the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called "the Act") The petitioner is a tenant and the respondent No.1 is the landlord. An application has been filed by the respondent No. 1 under Sec. 22(2)(a) and (f) of the Act. It is alleged that the petitioner accumulated arrears of rent which led to the filing of an application by the. respondent No. 1 under Sec. 32(4) of the Act. By Order dated 17th Sept., 1996, the Additional Rent Controller, Sub-Division. Mapusa, has passed an order allowing the application and directed the petitioner to vacate shop No. 2 on the ground floor of the building located in the property surveyed under No. 171/5 of Siolim village, Bardez.

(2.) It is disclosed across the Bar that this Order has been executed and possession was taken by the respondent No. 1. Be that as it may, against the aforesaid Order dated 17th Sept., 1990, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Administrative Tribunal. But the appeal was delayed for 11 days and an application for condonation of delay has been filed. The Administrative Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay by its Order dated 20th May, 1991. Consequently, the appeal filed by the petitioner has also been rejected. The aforesaid two orders passed by the authorities are under challenge in this Writ Petition.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner Shri a Godinho, has argued that the petitioner seeks to challenge not only the aforesaid two orders in this Writ Petition, but also the Order passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, fixing the fair rent of the building as its Order dated 24th April, 1989. Dwelling on this point he contended that the order fixing the fair rent has been passed without taking into consideration the factors to be taken into account in fixing the fair rent as laid down by the statute. He submits that the Tribunal has not properly applied its mind in passing that Order. There- fore, even at this distance of time an order passed in April, 1989 could be challenged in these proceedings by way of a Writ Petition, argues counsel.