JUDGMENT - Dr. COUTO G.F., J.:—The very maintainability of this revision application directed against the Order dated 24th April, 1989, whereby the learned District 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 it whether the revision application is maintainable.

2. The respondents has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 37,028 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 water and electricity charges. He had made a security deposit of Rs. 6,900/- and as it happened, he stopped making payments 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/- 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. By his judgment dated 15th February, 1989, the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji, partly decreed the suit and directed the petitioner herein to pay to the respondent a sum of Rs. 3,795/- which has been arrived at after adjusting the amounts already paid by him together with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. Being aggrieved by this judgment and decree of the trial Court, the respondent moved an appeal against it in the District Court, Panaji, and along with the said appeal, filed an application for stay dated 15th March, 1989, praying that pending the hearing and final disposal of the appeal, the operation and execution of the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court be stayed, or in the alternative, the present petitioner be directed to deposit monthly the amount of Rs. 2,300/- in Court, and further, that the appellant be allowed to withdraw the said amounts.

By his impugned Order dated 24th April, 1989, the learned District Judge stayed the operation of the judgment of the trial Court to the extent that the petitioner herein was ordered to deposit in Court the amount of rent stipulated under the contract till the final disposal of the appeal, and further, that the appellant would be at liberty to withdraw the deposited amounts corresponding to the fair rent fixed by the trial Court. It is against this order that the present revision application was filed.

4. 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document