BALKRISHNA MAHADEV NARVEKAR Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent No. 1 had filed an application for eviction of his tenant namely the petitioner on various grounds namely non-payment of rent, change of user, damage to the suit property and nuisance to the other occupants. The Addl. Rent Controller by Order dated 10th August, 1990 had refused eviction on the ground of non-payment of rent, but had ordered eviction on the other three grounds namely change of user, damage to the suit property and nuisance to the other occupants. The appellant had preferred appeal before the administrative Tribunal against the said order of the Addl. Rent controller. While the said appeal was pending adjudication, an application was filed by the respondent No. 1 on 4. 1. 1993 under Section 32 (4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Rent Control act (hereinafter called the said Act) on the ground that the petitioner had not deposited or paid rent from the month of July, 1991 and that the proceedings are liable to be stopped, resulting in eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner filed reply and produced chalans showing that the rent had been paid till December, 1991, but subsequently due to family problem he was not able to deposit the rent and that he was ready and willing to deposit the entire arrears. This application was allowed by the Administrative Tribunal vide impugned judgment dated 28th February, 1994 which is subject matter of challenge in this writ Petition. The Tribunal found that no sufficient cause has been shown by the petitioner for non-deposit of the rent and, as such, application under Section 32 (4) was allowed and consequently the petitioner was ordered to be evicted from the suit premises.

(2.) BEFORE me, learned Advocate Shri s. D. Lotlikar, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, relying upon a Division Bench judgment dated 6th January, 1988 of this court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 36/86 (Mrs. Damayantiben Shivaji Chauhan v. Dr. Dinesh R. Parekh and Ors.) urged before me that the tenant is not required to deposit rent before the Administrative Tribunal in appeal. He took me through the said judgment and specifically drew my attention to paras 5 to 8.

(3.) AS against the said submissions, learned advocate Shri P. P. Singh, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, made strenous efforts to distinguish the said authority on facts, in relation to the facts of appeal under consideration and urged before me that the learned Judges in the Letters Patent Appeal were confronted with a situation where the only ground for eviction was arrears of rent on which the eviction had been ordered, but in the case under consideration the eviction has been refused on the ground of arrears of rent eviction has been ordered on the other three grounds. It was also pointed out after referring to para 10 of the judgment in Letters patent Appeal that in the said case an application had been filed before the Tribunal for deposit of arrears of rent which had fallen due during the course of the proceedings before the Rent Controller and it is in this context that the learned Judges in the said Letters patent Appeal had held that such an application could not be entertained by the Tribunal. He then pointed out to the following observations in para 10 of the said Letters Patent appeal which reads as under :-