YOGESH MALLICK Vs. ADELAIDE AFONSO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE very maintainability of this Revision Application directed against the Order dated 24th April, 1989 whereby the learned Distt. Judge Panaji stayed the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge, senior Division, Panaji in a money suit, is the subject of a strong challenge by the respondent. Therefore, while admitting this Writ Petition, my learned brother Kamat, J. who dealt with it at the time of admission made it subject to the maintainability qua Section 46 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. Further, presumably under the assumption that the challenge to the maintainability of this Revision Application was in respect of the question as to whether a Revision Application against an Order passed under the Rent Control Act lies to the High Court, he added "Learned Advocate-General to lend assistance to the Court." The matter came now for hearing, and therefore, the first and the foremost question to be dealt with is whether the Revision Application is maintainable.

(2.) THE respondent has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 36,028/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum which sum was the balance of the arrears of rent due to her in respect of the occupation as a lessee of a flat. According to the respondent, the suit flat had been given on lease to the petitioner under an agreement dated 8th May, 1984, for the period of 11 months and on the monthly rent of Rs. 2,300/-. The petitioner was also liable to pay half of the monthly taxes as well as and electricity charges. He has made a security deposit of Rs. 6,900/- and as it happened, he stopped making payment of the monthly rent from April, 1985. Therefore, the respondent made adjustments of the rents against the security deposit amount and at the time of the filing of the suit, the rent was due from August, 1985 to October 1986, amounting to Rs. 34,500/-. In addition, the petitioner was liable to pay water charges to the tune of Rs. 800/- and Municipal Taxes amounting to Rs. 1,728/- per year for the years 1984 and 1985. The petitioner resisted the suit on several grounds and he stated that in any event he had applied for fixation of fair rent in July 1985, and the rent has been fixed at Rs. 879.75 per month by order dated 15th February, 1989. It is, therefore, his case that no amount is due to the respondent.

(3.) NOW , Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, has raised a preliminary objection as to the maintainability of this revision application for the reasons that, on one hand, the petitioner has not taken recourse to a revision application to the Administrative Tribunal, a remedy that was available under Section 46 of the Rent Control Act, and on the other, the impugned order does not amount to a case decided as attracting the application of the provisions of Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code. Although the objection to the maintainability is merely restricted to the grounds as above, it appears that the learned counsel appearing for the parties and the learned Advocate General looked at it from a larger angle, and therefore, argued at length in respect of the question as to whether or not a revision application lies against on order passed under the Rent Control Act.