AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard. This Division Bench has vide Judgment delivered on 22.06.2009 in LPA No. 15/2000, already held that the Bench of Bombay High Court sitting at Goa, does not possess jurisdiction to entertain LPAs.
Today, Advocate Pangam, appearing for appellant-tenant, has tried to demonstrate before us that earlier Division Bench of this Court in its Judgment reported at Cadar Constructions Vs. Tara Tiles, , held that such jurisdiction is available. He contends that as there are two conflicting views available, the controversy needs to be referred to a larger Bench.
He further states that in order to comply with interim directions of this Court dated 29.04.2009, the rent payments were sought to be deposited before Rent Controller but as proceedings were already closed, said Authority did not accept the payment and, thereafter, on 18.06.2009 itself, application has been moved with the Registry of this Court seeking permission to deposit that amount in this Court.
Senior Advocate Shri M. B. D'' Costa with Advocate Shri Lobo has urged that the earlier Division Bench has not examined the question of availability of jurisdiction to entertain LPA as has been done by this Court. He urges that provisions of Section 3 and Section 4 of High Court at Bombay (Extension of Jurisdiction to Goa, Daman & Diu) Act 1981, do not fall for consideration before earlier Division Bench. He also wants to address this Court on merits to show that wrong impression on facts was given to it thereby inducing it to issue notice in LPA. He wants to urge that on facts the LPA has no substance and matter does not deserve any reference to larger Bench or even admission. He further argues that the rent amount directed by this Court, while protecting the possession of appellant-tenant, has not been deposited and hence LPA needs to be dismissed.
We have perused the earlier Division Bench Judgment reported at Cadar Constructions Vs. Tara Tiles, . There the Order impugned in LPA was passed by Judicial Commissioner and because of sub-section (2) of Section 7, it was accepted as Order of High Court. Said Section 7 along with Section 9 has been considered and the consideration in this respect is in paragraph 7, 8 and 9 of said Judgment. The question posed before us, namely the availability of jurisdiction to entertain LPA itself in so far as Goa State is concerned, do not fall for consideration before earlier Division Bench. We were, in terms, called upon to consider the scope and interpretation of provisions of Section 3 and Section 4 of above mentioned 1981 Act and that is not the controversy before earlier Division Bench. In 1984 Division Bench, the Division Bench as also the Advocates have proceeded on the ground that such jurisdiction to entertain LPA was available to Goa Bench of Bombay High Court. We, therefore, do not find that any conflicting views are in field as on today. We, therefore, also find that no case for making reference to larger Bench is made out.
Though learned Senior Advocate for Respondent-landlord has tried to induce us to consider the controversy on merits, as we have already held that LPA is not maintainable, we are not applying our mind to the merits. The directions issued by this Court on 29.04.2009 have not been fully complied with but then appellant has forwarded the rent amount for the month of April, May and June by money orders directly to landlord and landlord is alleged to have not accepted those money orders. From the arguments of Advocate Pangam, it appears that rent amount forwarded similarly earlier also has not been accepted and money orders were refused. The act of forwarding money orders, therefore, cannot be viewed as compliance with the Orders of this Court dated 29.04.2009. However, considering the fact that we have already held that LPA is not maintainable, we protect the possession of appellant-tenant for a period of ten weeks more subject to appellant-tenant depositing the entire arrears as on today by 03.07.2009 with Registry of this Court. The said deposit is without prejudice to the rights and contentions of respondent-landlord. Respondent-landlord is also at liberty to withdraw that amount without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the matter. If the amount is not so deposited, the interim Order of protection shall stand vacated automatically and the impugned Orders shall resume operation. Subject to this, we protect the possession of appellant-tenant till 15.09.2009. LPA is accordingly disposed off.