(1.) This letters patent appeal by the landlady is against the order of single judge dated 12 April, 1984 rendered in Writ Petition No. 64 of 1983 challenging the validity of the order of the administrative Tribunal dated 10th March, 1983 in Eviction Appeal No. 24 of 1980 and the order of the Additional Rent Controller, South Goa, Margao, dated 30th September, 1980 in Case No. 53 of 1980. By the impugned order dated 12 April, 1984 in Writ Petition No. 64 of 1983 the two orders, one dated 10th March, 1983 made by Tribunal and the other of the Additional Rent Controller dated 30 September, 1980, whereby the tenant had been ordered to vacate the residential premises under his occupation and directed him to put the landlord in possession within 30 days were set aside.
(2.) The question posed in the Letters Patent Appeal turns on the interpretation of section 32 and section 22 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 hereinafter for brevity sake called the Rent Act. For the purposes of appreciating the contention raised by Shri Dias, learned Counsel for the appellant -landlady, a few facts be stated.
(3.) The appellant filed proceedings for eviction of the tenant on 11th April, 1980 under section 22(2)(a) of the Rent Act for non-payment of the rents along with other grounds like damage to the premises and the nuisances. The respondent-tenant was served with the summons of these proceedings on 2nd May, 1980 which required him to attend the Court of the Additional Rent Controller on 5 June, 1980. However, on 5 June, 1980 nothing happened as the rent controller was not available and the matter stood posted for 10 July, 1980. On 10 July, 1980 the tenant presented his written statement which was taken on record and at the same time filed an application for deposit of the arrears of rent from November 1979 till the date of the filing of the application with a further prayer to allow him to continue to deposit the further rents till the culmination of the proceedings.