The tenant's application under Section 22(4) of the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968 provided a substantial defense against eviction, and the tenant could establish the defense during the trial.

JUDGMENT

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. - Introduction:

A landlord seeks his tenant's eviction; one of the grounds is the tenant's default in paying the rent. Summons served, the tenant appears. But he does not apply under section 22 (3) or section 32 (1) of the Act. Beyond 30 days, he files a written statement and also an application. That application seems to answer the requirement under section 22 (4) of the Act. The Rent Controller allows it, but the Revisional Court reverses it. So this Writ Petition.

2. The question is, If the tenant has invoked neither section 22 (3) nor section 32 of the Act, does he still have an opportunity to justify the default, if any, under section 22 (4) of the Act?

Facts:

3. This is a tenant's Writ Petition against the Revisional Court's order. The Revision was against an interlocutory order passed by the Rent Controller. To appreciate the controversy, I will set out the facts briefly.

4. The respondent-landlord filed Rent Eviction Application No.47/2014/C before the Civil Judge, Junior Division "C" Court, Panaji, which is the designated Rent Controller. The landlord has sought the tenant's eviction on various grounds, including that of nonpayment of rent.

5. The eviction proceedings having been filed on 14/4/2015, the petitioner-tenant received the summons on 9/3/2015. Section 22(3) of the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968, permits him to apply to the Rent Controller in 30 days after he receives the summons for its leave to deposit the rent arrears. In the alternative, as an interim measure, section 32 also permits the tenant to deposit and continue to deposit the rent subject to the eviction proceedings' outcome.

6. Here, the tenant did not apply for the Rent Controller's leave in 30 days to deposit the rent. That means, he has not availed himself of section 22 (3) of the Act. But, on 18/6/2015, he filed his reply joining the issue on the grounds that the landlord raised for eviction. Besides that, he also applied under section 22(4) of the Act for the Rent Controller's leave to deposit the rent. True, before the Trial Court, the tenant's counsel represented that the application was under section 18. First, the application itself does not refer to any provision; and, second, the Rent Controller nevertheless treated that application as one under section 22(4) of the Act. That controversy may not affect the case before us. So, we need not pursue the fallout of the party's quoting the wrong provision, when the Court otherwise has the power to deal with the issue brought before it.

7. On 20/8/2015, the landlord filed a reply and opposed the tenant's application to deposit the rent. Finally, on 12/9/2016, the Rent Controller allowed the tenant's application. It permitted the tenant to deposit the rent "without prejudice to the right that might have accrued to the landlord."

8. Aggrieved, the landlord filed Rent Revision Application No.9/2016 before the Ad hoc District Judge-I, Fast Track Court, Panaji. Through an order, dated 24/7/2019, the learned Revisional Court reversed the Rent Controller's order. Therefore, it is the tenant's turn to be aggrieved. Accordingly, he has filed this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

Submissions:

Petitioner:

9. Shri Abhay Nachinolkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously contended that the Rent Controller's order is unexceptionable. In its limited jurisdiction, the Revisional Court ought not to have upset the Rent Controller's otherwise well-reasoned order. According to him, the Revisional Court has proceeded on the premise that the application was under section 18 of the Act, when the application was, in fact, under section 22(4) of the Act and when the Rent Controller did accept that fact. At any rate, as he points out, mere quoting of a wrong provision does not denude a competent court of its jurisdiction, whi