Back
1981 Supreme(Goa) 7
Goa High Court
K. M. MISHRA, Ag. J.C.
Chandrakant Govind Naik - Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sugenia Dias e Souza - Respondents
Spl. Civil Appln. (Writ Petn.) No.105 of 1977
Decided On : 15 June 1981
S.K. Kakodkar, for Petitioner; A.P. Cardozo, for Respondents Nos.1 and 2.
A tenant must either pay the rent directly or indirectly to the landlord or deposit the same with the Controller in case of refusal by the landlord to accept the payment. Remittance of rent by money order after the filing of the eviction proceedings is not sufficient compliance with the law.
Headnote:
RENT ACT - S.32(1), (2) AND (4) - PAYMENT OR DEPOSIT OF RENT DURING PENDENCY OF PROCEEDINGS FOR EVICTION - INTERPRETATION - CONSTITUTIONALITY OF S.32(4) - SUFFICIENT CAUSE TO THE CONTRARY.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a tenant, challenged the order of the Controller and the Administrative Tribunal directing him to hand over vacant possession of the leased premises to the respondents, the landlords, under S.32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (the Rent Act). The petitioner argued that he had remitted rent by money orders, but the landlords refused to accept them. He also contended that S.32(4) was unconstitutional.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the petitioner failed to comply with the requirements of S.32(1) of the Rent Act by merely remitting rent by money orders after the filing of the eviction proceedings. The Court also held that S.32(4) was not unconstitutional, as it provided sufficient guidelines for determining what constituted "sufficient cause to the contrary" to avoid an order of eviction.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioner had complied with the requirements of S.32(1) of the Rent Act by remitting rent by money orders after the filing of the eviction proceedings. 2. Whether S.32(4) of the Rent Act was unconstitutional.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted S.32(1) of the Rent Act to mean that a tenant must either pay the rent directly or indirectly to the landlord or deposit the same with the Controller in case of refusal by the landlord to accept the payment. The Court held that remittance of rent by money order after the filing of the eviction proceedings was not sufficient compliance with the law. 2. The Court held that S.32(4) of the Rent Act was not unconstitutional, as it provided sufficient guidelines for determining what constituted "sufficient cause to the contrary" to avoid an order of eviction. The Court noted that the authorities had to exercise their judicial discretion in a judicious manner, and that the higher Court would not hesitate to set aside any exercise of such discretionary power that was not exercised in a judicious manner.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the petitioner's writ application, holding that the orders of the Controller and the Administrative Tribunal were valid and that S.32(4) of the Rent Act was constitutional.
ORDER :- The petitioner at whose instance this Civil Rule has been issued is a tenant in respect of one room in the ground floor of a building situated on 31st Juary Road, Panjim, belonging to respondents Nos.1 and 2. On 26-5-1976, the aforesaid two respondents applied to the Controller, North Goa Division, hereinafter referred to as "the Controller" for an order of eviction of the petitioner on two grounds (i), arrears of rent and (ii) sub-letting of the room, under the provisions of S.22(2) (a) and (b) (i) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, hereinafter referred to as "the Rent Act". The petitioner was served with the notice of the proceedings on 2-6-1976 and opposed the application by a written statement dated 17-6-1976.
On 5-8-1976, the Controller recorded the evidence of respondent No.2 and his witnesses and then adjourned the case for the petitioners evidence to 10-9-1976. On 10-9-76, before the petitioner could lead evidence, the advocate for the respondents Nos.1 and 2 prayed for an order against the petitioner under sub-section (4) of S.32 of the Rent Act, on the ground that the petitioner had not paid or deposited rent in respect of the leased premises. On this application the Controller issued a notice to the petitioner to show cause why action under sub-sec.(4) of S.32 of the Rent Act be not taken against him. The petitioner showed cause by a reply dated 18-9-1976 stating that the petitioner had remitted rents of the leased premises to respondent No.1 by money-orders but that the said money-orders were refused by her.
2. By his order dated 29-11-1976, the Controller held that the petitioner had failed to show cause as to why further proceedings should not be stopped and passed an order under sub-section (4) of S.32 of the Rent Act directing the petitioner to handover vacant possesson of the room to respondents Nos.1 and 2. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred an appeal to the Administrative Tribunal. By order dated 13-6-1977, the Tribunal dismissed the petitioners appeal.
3. Mr. Kakodkar, learned advocate for the petitioner has in the first place submitted that remittance of rent by the tenant not being prohibited under S.32(1) of the Rent Act, the learned Controller committed a manifest error of law in holding that if a landlord refuses to accept rent tendered by the tenant (through M.O.) during the pendency of the proceedings for eviction, the tenant was bound to deposit the same with the Controller. His second submission is that S.32(4) is unconstitutional.
4. Sub-sections (1),(2) and (4) of S.32 relevant for our purpose read as follows :-
S.32 - Payment for deposit of rent during pendency of proceedings for eviction -
(1) No tenant against whom a proceeding for eviction has been instituted by a landlord under this Act shall be entitled to contest the proceeding before the Controller or any appellate or revisional authority or to prefer any appeal or revision under this Act, unless he has paid to the landlord or deposits with the Controller or the appellate or revisional authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent due in respect of the building up to the date of payment or deposit and continues to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Controller or appellate or revisional authority.
(2) The deposit of rent under sub-sec.(1) shall be made within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) ... .. .. .. .. ...
(4) If any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Controller or the appellate or revisional authority, as the case may be, shall, unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary stop all further proceedings and make an order directing The tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building."
5. In the writ application, dates of remittance of the rents have been mentioned. Out
