PIEDADE JANUARIO MENDES Vs. CAESARIO DE JESUS FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order of the Administrative Tribunal dated December 15, 1975 and the order of the Rent Controller dated July 3, 1975 which merges into the order of the Tribunal. By the said orders the petitioner who was the tenant of the first respondent in respect of a dwelling house was asked to hand over possession of the suit premises to the first respondent under Section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ).

(2.) An application for eviction was filed by the first respondent against the petitioner, inter alia, for non-payment of rent for the months of August, 1973 to January, 1974 at the rate of Rs. 52/- per month totalling Rs. 312/-. Notice of the application was received by the petitioner on February 22, 1974. The petitioner deposited on March 20, 1974 the sum of Rs. 312/- but did not deposit the rent for the month of February, 1974 which had already fallen due on the date on which the deposit was made. The rents for the months of February and March, 1974 were deposited on April 5, 1974. Rents subsequently due were also duly deposited. While the application for eviction was pending the first respondent filed an application dated June 6, 1975 stating that the rent for the month of February was not deposited in time and prayed for stoppage of all proceedings and for an order for restoration of possession of the suit premises to her under Section 32(4) of the Act. The Rent Controller granted the application, stopped the proceedings and ordered restoration of possession. The Administrative Tribunal confirmed the order of the Rent Controller, in appeal.

(3.) It is argued before me by Shri Usgaonkar that the Rent Controller did not consider whether sufficient cause was shown why proceedings should not be stopped and an order directing the petitioner to put the landlord in possession of the building, be passed. It is urged before me that the Rent Controller as well as the Tribunal took the view that since the petitioner had not deposited the rent in time. They had no power under the Act to condone the delay.