NURALLAH KAMRUDHIN VELJEE Vs. VERONICA MENEZES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the order of the Administrative Tribunal, Goa passed on 29th November 1996 in Eviction Appeal No. 27 of 1993 confirming the eviction order dated 30th August 1993 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, North Goa, Panaji in Rent Case No. Rent/arc/n/1/92.

(2.) THE petitioner is the tenant and the respondent No. 1 is the landlady in respect of the suit premises forming part of a building consisting of ground plus one floor standing on Chalta No. 109 of P. T. Sheet No. 35 of City survey of Panaji. The petitioner took the premises under a lease deed dated 8th August 1986 on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/ -. As per the term of the lease the said rent was later on increased to Rs. 600/- per month. The petitioner took the said premises for 25 years on rent payable on or before the 10th of the month next following. According to the respondent No. 1, the petitioner fell in arrears of rent for 5 months from June 1991 onwards. The petitioner thereafter issued a cheque of Rs. 3,000/- to the respondent No. 1 but the cheque was returned unpaid for want of funds. Even thereafter respondent No. 1 approached the petitioner several times but the latter simply promised to issue a fresh cheque as soon as he received any payment. Since no payment towards the arrears of rent was made by the petitioner, respondent No. 1 sent a legal notice dated 4th December 1991 to the petitioner through her advocate and called upon the petitioner to pay the arrears within 30 days from the receipt of the said notice. According to respondent No. 1, the said demand notice was received by the petitioner on 10th December 1991. However, the petitioner failed to comply with the demand made in the notice and did not clear the arrears of rent. Consequently, on 13th February 1992, respondent No. 1 was constrained to file an eviction application under section 22 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short ).

(3.) THE Additional Rent Controller, Panaji, issued a summons dated 6th March 1992 to the petitioner requiring him to attend the Court on 20th April 1992. The summons was served on the petitioner on 16th March 1992. The petitioner, however, did not make his appearance either personally or through his advocate before the Additional Rent Controller on 20th April 1992. Consequently, the eviction proceedings were directed to proceed ex parte against the petitioner. Thereafter, for some reason or the other, the proceedings were adjourned for four times. Finally, on 16th October 1992, the statement of respondent No. 1 was recorded and the case was posted to 5th November 1992 for passing final order. In the meantime, on 30th October 1992, the petitioner appeared before the Additional Rent Controller and submitted three applications. The first was an application for setting aside the ex parte order, the second was an application for condonation of delay in depositing the arrears of rent and the third was an application for permitting him to deposit the arrears of rent of Rs. 10,200/- for the period of 17 months from June 1991 till October 1992 with further permission to deposit future rents till the termination of the proceedings. . In view of these three applications filed by the petitioner, the Additional Rent Controller did not pass his final order on 5th November 1992. It appears that thereafter the proceedings were adjourned from time to time. Finally the Additional Rent Controller heard both the parties on 9th June 1993 and passed a common final order on 30th August 1993 whereby he allowed the eviction application filed by the respondent No. 1 and directed the petitioner to vacate the demised premises and put respondent No. 1 in possession thereof within a period of three months. As regards the above mentioned three applications filed by the petitioner, the Additional Rent Controller was pleased to reject the same. He came to the conclusion that the petitioner had fallen in arrears of rent for more than three months and had neglected to clear the same. He also came to the conclusion that the petitioner had committed wilful default in payment of rent. The Additional Rent Controller found that the applications made by the petitioner were not bona fide and as such they did not deserve any consideration.