The Court held that the Tribunal was justified in finding that the petitioner had not shown good cause for not depositing the rent in time and that the Tribunal's finding was not perverse or erroneous.

ORDER :- This writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 4-6-1977, passed by the Chairman, Administrative Tribunal.

2. The facts giving rise to this writ application may be stated as under :-

On 1-10-1972, Shri Jose Francisco filed an application before the Rent Controller, South Sub-Division, Margao, for eviction of the present petitioner for recovery of arrears of rents due. The present petitioner admitted before the Court of the Rent Controller that he was in arrears of rent. As per the order of the Rent Controller the petitioner deposited the arrears. While the matter was pending before the Rent Controller the landlord died and his heirs have been brought on record. A petition was filed for ordering eviction of the petitioner as he had admitted to be in arrears of rent. On 3-1-1976 the matter was heard and on 28-2-1976 the Controller passed order directing the petitioner to put the landlord in vacant possession of the suit premises within 30 days from the date of the order .

3. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed an appeal (Eviction Appeal No.15 of 1976) before the Tribunal. When the matter came up for hearing before the Tribunal on 13-9-1976, it was found that some deposits of rents before the Tribunal were not made within the prescribed time. The hearing of the appeal on merits was adjourned and the petitioner was given an opportunity to satisfy the Tribunal as to why an order should not be passed in terms of the provisions of sub-sec.(4) of S.32 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, to be hereinafter called the Act. An application was made on behalf of the landlord on 14-9-1976 praying that the proceedings be stopped under sub-sec.(4) of S.32 of the Act and that an order be made directing the petitioner to put the landlord in possession of the suit-premises The matter was heard by a bench of the Tribunal consisting of two members. There was difference of opinion between the members. The matter was therefore referred to the Chairman as laid down in the Rules.

4. The learned Chairman has stopped the proceedings and ordered the petitioner to give possession of the premises.

5. The defaults committed by the petitioner are these :-

(a) 15 days in respect of the rent of the month of March, 1976, since deposit was made only on 5-5-1977.

(b) 12 days regarding the rent of the month of May, 1976.

(c) Two days regarding the rent of the month of June, 1976, and

(d) 5 days consisting the rent of the month of July, 1976.

6. The first point urged before me by Shri Usgaonkar, learned Advocate for the petitioner, is that S.32(4), of the Act does not enable the Court to stop the proceeding and order the eviction upon a finding that the tenant had not shown good cause for not depositing the rent. The Court has to find out whether, apart from the failure to show cause for non-payment in time, the tenant had also shown cause that there was good reason for his not being evicted under S.32(4) of the Act. In support of his argument, reliance is placed on I.P. Hansraj v. G.S. Pannalal (1973 RCJ 384) (Mys).

The second argument of Mr. Usgaonkar is that the decision of the learned Chairman of the Tribunal is vitiated because he allowed the other two members who had heard the matter earlier to participate in the hearing of the appeal.

7. The second point be disposed of first. As earlier said the appeal was heard by two members consisting of Mr. P. Mulgaonkar and Shri Floriano Roque Justino Barreto. While Mr. Mulgaonkar was of the view that the tenant had shown sufficient cause, the other member, Shri Barreto took the contrary view. The Chairman in his order writes that the other two members participated. His observation in this regard reads as follows :-

"The matter was heard by bench of this Tribunal, but there was difference of opinion amongst the members. The matter was referred to him and it was heard afresh when both the Honble members also participated in th