Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Kanchan Ramdas Moraskar, was a tenant of premises owned by the respondent, Dr. Armando Joao Benedito Mascarenhas (since deceased, represented by legal representatives). The respondents initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner on various grounds, including non-payment of rent. During the pendency of those proceedings before the Rent Controller, the respondents filed an application under Section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman & Diu (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (the Act), seeking to stop the proceedings and for possession, alleging that the petitioner had defaulted in depositing rent. The Rent Controller rejected that application on 9.9.1997, accepting the petitioner's justification that family litigation prevented payment. The respondents appealed to the Lower Appellate Authority. During the appeal, the petitioner again defaulted in paying rent for over 9 years. The respondents filed another application under Section 32(4) before the Appellate Authority. The petitioner sought to deposit arrears just before the application, but the Appellate Authority allowed the respondents' application by order dated 18.8.2015, directing the proceedings to be stopped and the petitioner to hand over possession. The petitioner challenged this order in the present writ petition. The High Court heard arguments from both sides. The court considered whether the Appellate Authority's order was justified. The court noted that the petitioner had not deposited rent for a prolonged period and that the justification of family litigation was insufficient. The court upheld the Appellate Authority's order, finding no error in the exercise of discretion. The writ petition was dismissed, confirming the direction to hand over possession.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Section 32(4) - Non-payment of Rent - Stop Proceedings - The Appellate Authority allowed the landlord's application under Section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman & Diu (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, for stopping the appeal proceedings and directing the tenant to hand over possession due to non-payment of rent for over 9 years. The tenant's justification of family litigation was rejected as not constituting sufficient cause. Held that the tenant's default in depositing rent during the appeal warranted the drastic remedy under Section 32(4) (Paras 3-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in allowing the application under Section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman & Diu (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, for stopping proceedings and directing possession to the landlord due to non-payment of rent by the tenant during the pendency of the appeal.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Appellate Authority dated 18.8.2015. The court found no error in the Appellate Authority's exercise of discretion in allowing the application under Section 32(4) of the Act and directing the petitioner to hand over possession of the premises to the respondents.
Law Points
- Section 32(4) of the Goa
- Daman & Diu (Lease
- Rent and Eviction) Control Act
- 1968
- non-payment of rent
- stop proceedings
- hand over possession
- sufficient cause
- tenant's default
- appellate authority's discretion
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (12) 84
WRIT PETITION NO. 889 OF 2015
Shri Sudin Ugaonkar, Senior Advocate with Ms. T. Ghanekar, Advocate for the Petitioner; Mr. J. E. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate with Ms. V. Braganza, Advocate for the Respondent no. 1(a) and (b)
Smt. Kanchan Ramdas Moraskar
Dr Armando Joao Benedito Mascarenhas (since deceased) through his L.R.s, a) Janete Mascarenhas (widow), b) Reginaldo Sequeira through his attorney Taran Marc Roy
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Appellate Authority allowing an application under Section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman & Diu (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, for stopping proceedings and directing possession to the landlord due to non-payment of rent.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner (tenant) sought to quash the order dated 18.8.2015 passed by the Appellate Authority which allowed the respondents' (landlords') application under Section 32(4) of the Act, directing the proceedings to be stopped and the petitioner to hand over possession of the premises.
Filing Reason
The petitioner defaulted in payment of rent during the pendency of the appeal before the Appellate Authority, leading the respondents to file an application under Section 32(4) of the Act to stop proceedings and seek possession.
Previous Decisions
The Rent Controller by order dated 9.9.1997 rejected the respondents' earlier application under Section 32(4) during the initial eviction proceedings, accepting the petitioner's justification of family litigation. The respondents appealed that order, and during the appeal, the petitioner again defaulted in rent, leading to the impugned order.
Issues
Whether the Appellate Authority was justified in allowing the application under Section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman & Diu (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, for stopping proceedings and directing possession due to non-payment of rent.
Whether the tenant's justification of family litigation constituted sufficient cause for non-payment of rent under Section 32(4).
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that there was justifiable ground for non-payment of rent due to family litigation.
The respondents contended that the petitioner had defaulted in depositing rent for over 9 years and that the justification was insufficient, warranting the drastic remedy under Section 32(4).
Ratio Decidendi
Under Section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman & Diu (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, if a tenant fails to pay or deposit rent during the pendency of proceedings without sufficient cause, the authority may stop the proceedings and direct the tenant to hand over possession to the landlord. The tenant's justification of family litigation was not sufficient cause to excuse the prolonged default of over 9 years.
Judgment Excerpts
The challenge in the above petition is to an Judgment and order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 18.8.2015 whereby an application filed by the respondent under Section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman & Diu (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act for non-payment of rent during the pendency of the appeal preferred by the respondents came to be allowed and the proceedings were ordered to be stopped and the petitioner was directed to hand over possession of the said premises to the respondents.
The petitioner tried to justify the default on different counts including the ground that as there was litigation in the family there were justifiable grounds not to deposit the rent.
Procedural History
The respondents (landlords) initiated eviction proceedings against the petitioner (tenant) before the Rent Controller. During those proceedings, the respondents filed an application under Section 32(4) of the Act for non-payment of rent, which was rejected by the Rent Controller on 9.9.1997. The respondents appealed to the Lower Appellate Authority. During the appeal, the petitioner defaulted in rent for over 9 years. The respondents filed another application under Section 32(4) before the Appellate Authority, which was allowed on 18.8.2015, directing the proceedings to be stopped and the petitioner to hand over possession. The petitioner challenged this order by filing the present writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
Acts & Sections
- Goa, Daman & Diu (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968: 32(4)
