Shri Vassant Tukaram Parab vs Mrs. Aurolina Gomes

F.M. Reis, J.—Heard Shri D. Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. In view of the Judgment of this Court reported in Vinod Kumar Gosalia and Others Vs. Frank Silva Lobo Norton and Others, , and Maria Madeirae Fernandes Vs. Vishnu Mahadeo Kanekar, , wherein it has been held that for the purpose of defending the proceedings even time barred rents can be ordered to be deposited/paid, Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, restricts his challenge only to the direction to the learned Rent Controller that in case of failure on the part of the Petitioner to deposit the rent as directed within a specific period of thirty days, all proceedings shall stop and the Respondent shall put the Applicant-the landlord in vacant possession of the suit premises.

Shri Pangam, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, pointed out that the question of issuing of such directions would not arise as, in any event, in case there is any such default, there is always liberty available to the Respondent-landlord to file an appropriate application u/s 32(4) of the Goa, Daman & Diu Buildings (Lease Rent & Eviction) Control Act, (for short "Rent Control Act"). Learned Counsel further pointed out that the Petitioner is entitled for a show cause notice on any such application to stop the proceedings and direct the vacant possession of the suit premises. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the dispute before the learned Rent Controller and the learned Administrative Tribunal was essentially with regard to the dispute raised about the quantum of rent and the question of granting such directions would not arise.

Shri Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent, fairly states that in case of default in the payment of the rent as direction, the Respondent-landlord is entitled to file an application u/s 32(4) of the said Rent Control Act and seek direction to the Petitioner to vacate the suit premises. The learned Counsel also does not dispute that if any application u/s 32(4) of the Rent Control Act is filed, the Petitioner is entitled for a show cause notice.

I have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel. I have also gone through the records. The learned Rent Controller in the operative part of the Order dated 03.05.2002, has, inter alia, directed that in case of default/failure to deposit the rent within thirty days, all proceedings shall stop and the Petitioner shall put the Respondent-landlord in vacant possession of the suit premises. It cannot be disputed that in case of such default, the Respondent-landlord is always entitled to file an application u/s 32(4) of the Rent Control Act and the Petitioner-tenant is entitled for a show cause notice on that count. In such circumstances, I find that the direction "failing which all proceedings shall stop and the Respondent shall put the Applicant landlord in vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises" deserves to be quashed and set aside.

In view of the above, for the aforesaid reasons, the said portion of the operative part of the Order dated 03.05.2002 passed by the learned Rent Controller stands quashed and set aside. Needless to say, the Respondent-landlord is always entitled to file an appropriate application u/s 32(4) of the Rent Control Act and, in case such application is filed, the learned Rent Controller shall dispose of such application after hearing the parties in accordance with law. Rule stands disposed of accordingly.