CAROLINA FERNANDES Vs. AIDA SEQUEIRA E. VAZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is preferred against the order dated 29th March, 1993 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Mormugao in Case No. BLDG/ MISC/1/93. By the said order the respondent No. 3 herein has stayed the order of eviction passed in Case No. BLDG/ARC -VS2/92 dated 25th February, 1993 and the matter was fixed for hearing pursuant to the application filed by the respondent No. 2 herein under Section 50 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 hereinafter called as 'the Rent Act', read with Order XXI Rules 99, 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(2.) IT is noticed from the records that, inspite of repeated opportunity being afforded to the petitioner, no steps were taken to serve respondent No.) and, therefore, the matter as far as the respondent No. 1 is concerned, was ordered to be dismissed.

(3.) IT is the case of the respondent No. 2 that one of the partners of that firm found a notice signed by one Mr. T.T. Tandel, Awal Karkun pasted on the door of the suit premises and the said notice was in respect of the eviction order passed by the respondent No. 3. Pursuant thereto the respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 50 of the Rent Act read with Order XXI, Rules 99, 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure objecting to the execution of the eviction order on the ground that the respondent No. 2 is the tenant of the petitioner in respect of the suit premises for the last more than 20 years and was in fact paying the rent in respect of the suit premises to the petitioner. It is its further case that since 1990 the petitioner refused to accept the rent by cheques. An application under Section 18 of the Rent Act therefore was filed for deposit of the rent in the Court and the same was registered in the Court of respondent No. 3 as Building Case No. BLDG/ARC/V/13/92. Pursuant thereto the respondent No. 3 issued a notice dated 24th June, 1992 to the petitioner, which was duly served upon the petitioner herein. However, that matter remained undecided on account of adjournments sought by the petitioner herein on number of occasions. Meanwhile the said order of eviction was obtained by the petitioner which was objected to by the respondent No. 2 by its application dated 26th March, 1993, pursuant to which the order dated 29th March, 1993 was passed by the respondent No. 3 staying the execution proceedings.