DAMAYANTIBEN SHIVAJI CHAUHAN Vs. DINESH PAREKH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's Letters Patent Appeal against the decision of the learned Single Judge and raises a question of law with regard to the interpretation of Section 32 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act').

(2.) The relevant facts are as follows :-

(3.) Aggrieved by the order of eviction, the tenant preferred an appeal before the Administrative Tribunal on October 31, 1984 and on December 4, 1984 deposited in the Tribunal all the arrears of the rent due till that date. The Administrative Tribunal dismissed the appeal on November 20, 1985 on two grounds. The first was that the tenant had not deposited the arrears of rent along with the appeal which was according to the Tribunal, the requirement of Section 32 of the Act. The Tribunal took the view that in view of the said provisions the appeal was not validly instituted on 31.10.1984 and it could be deemed to have been instituted only on 4.12.1984 on which day it was barred by limitation. The second ground given by the Tribunal was that the landlord had filed before it an application under Section 32(4) of the Act for stoppage of the further proceedings and direction to the tenant to put him in possession of the premises for failure to pay or to deposit the rent before the Rent Controller when the proceedings were pending before him. Since according to the Tribunal the tenant had shown sufficient cause for not paying or depositing the rent before the Rent Controller during the proceedings before him, the landlord was entitled to succeed in the said application. The Tribunal, therefore, in that application stopped the appellate proceedings before it, and ordered the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the premises. And since such an order was passed in that application (which heard along with the appeal) the appeal itself was liable to be dismissed.