The main legal point established in the judgment is that 'sufficient cause' under Section 32(4) of the Rent Act denotes conduct indicative of persistent defaults, intentional behavior, and harassment to the landlord, rather than occasional or inadvertent defaults. The discretion under Section 32(4) must be exercised in accordance with well-settled legal principles.

Heard. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent.

2. By this petition, the petitioners have challenged legality and correctness of the order dated 15/07/2015 passed by Principal District Judge, South Goa, whereby, by invoking power under Section 32(4) of Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (the Rent Act, for short), the proceedings of Rent Appeal No.35/2013 have been directed to be stopped with a further direction to the petitioners to put the respondents in possession of the suit premises.

3. Petitioner no.2, according to the respondents, is their tenant and petitioner no.1 has been inducted as subtenant by petitioner no.2 without any permission from the respondents. The respondents, therefore, launched eviction proceedings against both the petitioners and during the pendency of these proceedings, an application under Section 32(4) of the Rent Act came to be filed by the respondents contending that the petitioners have failed to deposit arrears of rent as well as rent that was due and payable every month. This application was granted by the Rent Controller and the petitioners were directed to put the respondents in possession of the suit premises. Against this order, an appeal was filed by the petitioners before the Administrative Tribunal, but later on, owing to amendment introduced to the Rent Act, the powers of the Appellate Authority under the Act were conferred upon the District Judge and therefore, Rent Appeal came to be transferred to the Court of District Judge, South Goa and it was registered as Rent Appeal No.35/2013.

4. During the pendency of Rent Appeal, the respondents realised that there were some defaults in depositing the amount of rent in the District Court and, therefore, they moved yet another application under Section 32(4) of the Rent Act for stoppage of the proceedings and putting them in possession of the suit premises. After hearing both sides and considering the record before it, the Court of District Judge, South Goa, by the order passed on 15/07/2015, allowed the application and being aggrieved by the same, the petitioners are before this Court in the present writ petition.

5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have substantially complied with the requirement of Section 32 of the Rent Act and they have been granted permission to deposit rent or arrears of rent from time to time not only by the Rent Controller but also by the Appellate Authority. He submits that once leave is granted to the tenant for depositing of rent under the provisions of Section 32, past conduct or past defaults of a tenant cannot be considered so as to record a finding that the tenant is a cantankerous and habitual defaulter. He submits that there has been a series of judgments holding that the provisions of Section 32 of the Rent Act are not mandatory and are only directory in nature in the sense that once the application is made under Section 32(4) of the Rent Act, the Court is not compelled to allow such an application. He submits that just because such an application is made, the Court is not bound to grant it and Court has to be discreet in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 32 of the Rent Act. He further submits that the well settled principles of law applicable to exercise of such a discretion indicate that the sufficient cause contemplated under subsection (4) of Section 32 has to be interpreted as something reasonable which prevented the tenant from making timely deposit of the rent and thus, has broader connotations which must be understood in the peculiar facts and circumstances of each case.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners have deposited all the arrears of rent right upto October, 2015 and it may be that for a period of one month i.e. for the month of September, 2014, the rent has not been deposited but, that was only due to some inadvertence on the part of the petitioners