IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that under Sec. 32(4) of the Rent Control Act, tenants must be given a fair opportunity to contest eviction proceedings, and failure to serve notice on the tenant constitutes a breach of natural justice.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard Mr S. D. Padiyar for the petitioner and Mr J. Abreu Lobo for respondent no.1.

2. The petitioner challenges the Judgment and Order dtd. 26/7/2019 made by the Ad-hoc District Judge-1 (FTC) at Panaji in her capacity as the Rent Tribunal disposing of Rent Revision Application No.10/2016 instituted by Mr F. X. Paulino Dias Souza (respondent no.1) - Landlord and ordering the eviction of the petitioner and respondent nos.2 to 8 from premises bearing House No.1/134/1 in Chalta No.128 of P.T. Sheet No.44 of City Survey Panaji (suit premises). This eviction is ordered under Sec. 32(4) of the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (Rent Control Act) for the alleged failure on the part of the tenants in paying or depositing the rent during the pendency of proceedings for eviction.

3. The parties do not dispute that Mr F. X. Paulino Dias Souza (respondent no.1) or his predecessor in title owned the suit premises. According to the petitioner, respondent no.1's mother, Eugenia Dias, leased the suit premises to the petitioner's husband, Domingos Lourenco, for a monthly rent of Rs.25.00. The petitioner claims that this rent was revised to Rs.200.00 per month in June 1992 and Rs.250.00 per month in August 2002. The petitioner claims to be in possession of the suit premises in pursuance of a document dtd. 1/7/1962, through which she operates a printing press under the name and style of Popular Printing Press.

4. However, Mr Lobo, learned counsel for respondent no.1, has a different version. He states that the document dtd. 1/7/1962 is not signed by any parties; in any case, the same is a forgery. He submits that the suit premises were leased by respondent No.1's father to the late Jose Caetano Gonsalo Lourenco in 1952. On the demise of Jose Caetano Gonsalo Lourenco, the tenancy rights were inherited by Domingos Lourenco, i.e. the late husband of the petitioner and John Sebastiao Gonsalo Lourenco (respondent no.2). Mr Lobo submitted that upon the demise of Domingos Lourenco, the petitioner Bertalinha and her children respondent nos.4 to 8 succeeded to the tenancy rights along with John Sebastiao Gonsalo Lourenco (respondent no.2) and his wife Olga Lourenco (respondent no.3).

5. Thus, even the landlord's version, if accepted in its entirety, suggests that the petitioner Bertalinha and her children, respondents nos.4 to 8, have tenancy rights in the suit premises together with John and Olga (respondent no.2 and 3). However, Mr Padiyar, learned counsel for the petitioner, asserted that the petitioner and respondent nos.4 to 8 are the exclusive tenants of the suit property based upon the document of 1/7/1962. This controversy is not very relevant to the main issue raised in the present petition.

6. The petitioner's case is that the landlord (respondent no.1) travelled abroad, and, as such, there were difficulties in paying rent. On 4/1/2006, the petitioner sent a cheque of Rs.10, 500.00 by registered post, but the landlord returned the cheque without encashment. Similarly, a cheque for Rs.19, 250.00 sent by registered post returned with the remark that the landlord was out of the station on 25/4/2012. The petitioner, therefore, filed an application dtd. 9/5/2012 under Sec. 18 of the Rent Control Act for the rent deposit with the Rent Controller. This application was numbered Rent Application No.15/2012. Notice in this application was published in the local newspaper "Gomantak Times". However, it is the petitioner's case that despite service through publication, the landlord refused to attend the proceedings under Sec. 18 of the Rent Control Act.

7. Instead, the landlord caused a notice dtd. 1/1/2014 to be served upon the petitioner demanding arrears, which the landlord quantified at the rate of Rs.4, 91, 850.00. In this notice, the landlord claimed that the rent for the suit premises was around Rs.3, 000.00 per month. The petitioner has pleaded that this was never the agreed rent.

8. The petitioner sent a reply dtd