JUDGMENT

C.V. Bhadang, J. - The challenge in this petition is to the order dated 18/1/2011 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Eviction Appeal no.12/2003. By the impugned order, the learned Administrative Tribunal has allowed an application filed by the respondent under section 32 (4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1965 (Act, for short) directing stoppage of the proceedings and eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises shop no.4 on the ground floor of a building situated at Margao.

2. The respondent/landlord filed Eviction proceedings against now deceased Rosy Manwindra and her son Winsor alias Willy Manwindra (since deceased) for their eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, subletting and the tenant ceasing to occupy the suit premises. That application was filed somewhere in the year 1985 . The case made out in the application was that the original tenant was in possession of the suit shop on an agreed rent of Rs. 275/- per month. It appears that during the pendency of the said application, the respondent filed an application under section 32(4) of the Act on the ground that the tenants had failed to pay the arrears of rent and were thus liable to be summarily evicted. The Rent Controller vide order dated 24/2/1987 allowed the application. Feeling aggrieved the original tenant filed an Eviction Appeal bearing no.28/1987 before the Administrative Tribunal.

That appeal came to be allowed on 13/4/1992 and the matter was remitted back to the Rent Controller for disposal in accordance with law. The main application for eviction was dismissed by the Rent Controller on 26/11/2002 holding that none of the three grounds on which the eviction was sought were established. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed Eviction Appeal no.12/2003 before the Administrative Tribunal. It appears that on account of death of the original tenant, the present petitioners were brought on record (as respondents in the appeal before the Administrative Tribunal) in the year 2008. The respondents filed an application on 31/3/2009 before the Administrative Tribunal for deposit of the arrears of rent from October 2018 to April 2009 which application was allowed on 21/4/2009. The petitioners, however, deposited the rents due only on 3/9/2009 and failed to deposit the rent for the subsequent period i.e. from May 2009 onwards. It was in these circumstances that the respondents herein filed an application under section 32(4) of the Act on 30/3/2010 again seeking stoppage of the proceedings and eviction of the petitioners on the ground that they had failed to pay the arrears of rent.

3. The petitioners filed their reply and resisted the application. However, the quantum of rent and the arrears were not disputed. The only contention raised was that the petitioner no.1 was continuously required to look after her daughter i.e the petitioner no.2 and her infant son and was required to incur heavy medical expenditure on the treatment of the petitioner no.2. The petitioners undertook to diligently pay and deposit the rent to the landlord or to deposit the same in the Court as directed by the Court. The petitioners also showed willingness to pay/deposit the arrears of rent for the period from May 2009 to April 2010 amounting to Rs. 3300/-. The Administrative Tribunal by the impugned order has allowed the application filed by the respondents, which is subject matter of challenge in this petition.

4. I have heard Shri Bhobe, the learned counsel for the petitioners and Shri Coutinho, the learned counsel for the respondent. With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have gone through the record and the impugned order passed by the Administrative Tribunal.

5. Shri Bhobe, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Datta Anant Ghadi Vs. Smt. Guilermina Silveira and Others , (2000) 1 GoaLT 39, in order to submit that