M E T MARQUIS Vs. RAMDAS R KOLWALKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are the unsuccessful land-lords in the application filed under Section 32 (4) before the Rent Controller where the original application bearing No. RENT/arc/36/84 was pending. THE original application was filed for eviction of the respondent on the ground of sub-letting. While that application was pending, the petitioners filed the present application before the Rent Controller contending that the respondent was in arrears for the period from 1.8.1983 to 30.6.1984.

(2.) EVIDENCE has been adduced both oral and documentary before the Rent Controller about showing the sufficiency of cause for keeping the rent in arrears. The petitioners also adduced evidence in support of their contentions. On appreciation of the evidence, the Rent Controller found that there was sufficient cause for non-payment of arrears of rent and the respondent has already deposited in the Court all arrears of rent and continue to pay regularly the future rent. In view of this, the application filed by the petitioners under Section 32 (4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act,1968 was dismissed by his Judgment dated 23.1. 87. Against that order, the petitioners filed appeal before the Administrative Tribunal of Goa, Daman and Diu at Panaji as Eviction Revision Application No.2/87. On re-appreciation of evidence, the Appellate Authority also came to the same conclusion that the respondent has shown sufficient cause for non-payment of rent and, therefore, the application under Section 32 (4) filed by the petitioners was not maintainable and was dismissed. Against these two orders, the petitioners approached this Court under Section 227 of the Constitution of India. The main contention of the respondent before the Rent Controller was that there was sufficient cause for non-payment; that the respondent had instructed his Bankers to make payment in every month to the petitioners. It has further come out in the evidence that the instructions have not been complied for lack of certain misunderstanding of the Banker, and, therefore, the payment could not regularly reach. The concerned Branch Manager and the parties are examined before the Rent Controller and the Rent Controller, on the materials available has already held that the sufficient cause has been shown by the tenant.