AVELINO DE SOUZA Vs. CHAIRMAN ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the landlord of a building bearing House No. 123/2, situated at Duler, Mapusa, Goa and respondent No. 3 (hereinafter called the respondent is the tenant of the petitioner. The rent payable in respect of the said building was Rs. 20/- per month. Since the respondent was in arrears of rent for a period of 24 months, from October, 1977 to September, 1979, in the total amount of Rs. 480/- the petitioner filed an application in October 1979 before the Rent Controller (hereinafter called the Controller), under section 22 (l) (a) c the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the Act) after serving on him a notice for payment of the said rents. The respondent before filing his written statement raised a dispute under section 32 (3) of the Act, by his application dated 11-12-1979, claiming that the rents were paid by him upto September, 1978 and when in November, 1978 he had taken the rent for October. 1978, the same was refused by the petitioners mother who threw the money at his face. He has further claimed that the petitioners mother had never issued receipts in the past and therefore the arrears of rent from October, 1977 were false. On 14th December, 1979, the respondent filed his written statement wherein be also denied that he was in arrears of rent. Thereupon an inquiry was held by the Controller under section 32 of the Act and after evidence was recorded the respondent was ordered on 22-8-1980 to deposit the rents as claimed by the petitioner. A regular inquiry followed on merits of the application during which both the parties adduced evidence. By order dated 21-11-1981 the Controller directed the respondents eviction from the suit premises holding, inter alia, that the respondents evidence was full of inconsistencies. The Controller did not accept the version of the respondent that the rents had been refused by the petition mother. The Controller gave also a finding that the respondent had not been able to show sufficient and reasonable cause for his failure to pay the arrears of rent and even assuming the respondent was a poor man, as claimed by him, however that should not prevent him from paying to the petitioner the party amount of Rs. 20/- per month which could have been even paid every month, in case the petitioners mother had refused to accept, by Money Order which the respondent has also failed to do. The Controller also held that the respondent had display carelessness and negligence in paying the rents due and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to get the vacant possession of the premises. Hence he ordered the respondent to hand over within 60 days from the date of the order.

(2.) THE respondent dissatisfied with the order of the Controller filed an appeal before Administrative Tribunal which, by his judgment dated 7th December, 1988, reversed the order of the Controller by holding that the respondent had complied with the Controllers orders under the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 22 of the Act and therefore he could not liable for eviction under sub-section (a) of section 22 of the said Act. It is this judgment and order of the Administrative Tribunal which is being challenged by the petitioner in this writ petition filed by the respondent under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

(3.) IT was firstly submitted by Shri Coelho Pereira, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, that the impugned judgment of the Administrative Tribunal is basically erroneous and perverse a trully non-speaking judgment which is lacking in foundation either in facts or in law. Shri Coelho Pereira stated that for that matter the learned Tribunal grossly overlooked that the respondent has never contended that because he had availed of the provisions of section 32 (3) of the Act in the proceedings for eviction instituted by the petitioner against him on the ground of non-payment of rents, the provisions of section 22 (2) (a) of the Act were also attracted in the case. Indeed it was wrong on the part of the Tribunal to hold that since the respondent had ostensibly complied with the orders of the Controller in terms of sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 22 of the Act no orders under section 22 (a) of the Act could be made. Shri Coelho Pereira urged that if it was a question of holding that the case of the respondent was covered under sub-sections (3) and (4) of section 22 of the Act then the petitioner could have never been made to pay the costs of the proceedings as it was directed by the Tribunal and, on the contrary, such costs would be required to be paid by the said respondent as expressly provided in sub-section (3) of section 22 (in fine) of the Act. Similarly the Tribunal was in error in holding that the respondents case would be covered at the same time by sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 22 of the Act not only because, on facts, the Controller had given a finding, which the Tribunal did not disturb, to the effect that the respondent had failed to show reasonable and sufficient cause to pay the arrears of rent but also because if the respondent had complied with sub-section (3) of section 22 of the Act on account of the payment or deposit of rents eventually made by him within 30 days from the institution of the proceedings, as concluded by the learned Tribunal the question of operation of sub-section (4) could not have even arise. This by itself shows non-application of mind by the Tribunal and complete misconstruction of the provisions of sub-section (4 ) of section 22 of the Act so much so, admittedly, there was not even an application on record made by the respondent to the Controller for the purpose of condoning this default to pay, tender or deposit the rent on the ground of a reasonable cause.