The exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal depended on the existence of a cause of action and the timely filing of the appeal. A properly constituted appeal and the need for condonation of delay were emphasized.

Headnote:
Rent Control Act - Jurisdiction - Section 22, Section 32(4), Section 45(3) - The court discussed the jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal to pass an eviction order under section 32(4) of the Rent Control Act. It highlighted the importance of a properly constituted appeal and the need for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The court emphasized that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal depended on the existence of a cause of action and the timely filing of the appeal.
Fact of the Case:

Respondents filed an application for eviction of the appellant due to arrears of rent. The Rent Controller initially ruled in favor of the appellant, but the respondents appealed to the Administrative Tribunal, which decreed the appeal. The appellant then filed a writ petition, contending that the appeal was incompetent and the orders lacked jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the appeal was not properly constituted and the orders lacked jurisdiction. It quashed the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Administrative Tribunal to hear the maintainability of the appeal before considering other aspects.
Issues: The main issue was the competence and jurisdiction of the Administrative Tribunal to pass the eviction order. The court also addressed the timeliness of the appeal and the need for condonation of delay.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the exercise of jurisdiction by the Tribunal depended on the existence of a cause of action and the timely filing of the appeal. It emphasized the importance of a properly constituted appeal and the need for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned orders were quashed and set aside. The matter was remanded to the Administrative Tribunal to hear the maintainability of the appeal before considering any other aspect of the matter. All other questions were left open to be decided by the Tribunal. No order as to costs was made.

JUDGMENT- F.I. REBELLO, J.:---Appellant is original respondent. Respondents 1 and 2 are original applicants. Respondents 1 and 2 filed an application for eviction of the appellant herein on the ground that the appellant was in arrears of rent. By judgment dated 31st October 1985, the Rent Controller held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit under sub-section (3) of section 22 of the Rent Control Act and, therefore, no order of eviction could be passed on the ground sought in the application dated 19th March 1985. Respondents 1 and 2 aggrieved by the order preferred a review before the Rent Controller. The said review was dismissed by order of 15th July 1987. The Rent Controller gave a finding that he could not invoke Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and assume to himself the power of review. In these circumstances, he held that the application for review fails. Apart from that he also appreciated the matter on merits and dismissed the review application.

2.Aggrieved, the respondents 1 and 2 preferred an appeal to the Administrative Tribunal which was numbered as Eviction Appeal No. 53 of 1987. Before the Tribunal it was contended that after service of the notice of the appeal on the appellant, he had failed to deposit the rent as contemplated under section 32 of the Rent Act and, therefore, he should be evicted under section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. The appellant contended that the appeal was not maintainable. It was also contended that he was advised that as the appeal was incompetent there was no question of depositing the arrears of rent in the Court. The Tribunal found favour with the respondents 1 and 2 and decreed the appeal against the appellant by its order dated 21st June 1990.

3.The appellant preferred a writ petition before this Court which was numbered as Writ Petition No. 226 of 1990/. Before the learned Single Judge, the appellant/petitioner also contended that no order could be passed as the order of the Rent Controller dated 31st October 1985 and the appeal preferred beyond limitation was incompetent. The learned Single Judge in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgments purported to reject the said contention and dismissed the petition. Hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal.

4.At the hearing of the appeal on behalf of the appellant it is contended that the orders of the third respondent and the learned Single Judge are liable to be set aside. It is contended that the orders suffer from want of jurisdiction. It is further contended that if there was no properly constituted appeal, the Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to pass any order under section 32(4) of the Rent Control Act. The learned Single Judge in dismissing the petition in respect of orders without jurisdiction, has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in him and, therefore, the order is liable to be set aside.

5.On behalf of the respondents it is contended that the findings given by the third respondent has not been interfered with by the learned Single Judge. It is further contended that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to decide the appeal, notice of which was given to the appellant herein, and to order eviction, if the appellant had failed to comply with the provisions of section 32(4) of Rent Control Act.

6.The main issue that arises in this appeal is whether the Administrative Tribunal was competent and/or had jurisdiction to pass the impugned order dated 21st June 1990. If it had jurisdiction, then it could have proceeded to pass the order. The order of the Rent Controller dismissing the application for eviction filed by respondents 1 and 2 is dated 31st October 1985. Under section 45 sub-section (3), appeal had to be filed within 30 days. That time could be extended if the respondents 1 and 2 had applied for condonation of delay and shown sufficient cause. We do not find anywhere in the records that the Administrative Tribunal condoned the delay. We thereaft

Click Here to Read the rest of this document