SHRI. RANUJI CHAVAN & Anr. v. MR. PEDRO GONSALVES (DECEASED)
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. At the request of the Counsel for the petitioners, one month's time is granted for vacation of the suit house. SMA C. L. PANGARKAR, J.
Judgment
Cause title
SHRI. RANUJI CHAVAN AND ANR.,
Versus
MR. PEDRO GONSALVES (DECEASED) THROUGH LR'S ... Petitioners
Respondent
Ms. Asha Dessai, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. M.A.Fernandes, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 18th February, 2009
ORAL ORDER :
Heard the Counsel for the petitioners.
This writ petition is filed against the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal whereby it confirmed the order passed by the Rent Controller with a direction of eviction of the petitioners under Section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. The respondent filed an application before the Rent Controller alleging that the defendants/ tenants were not paying the rent regularly and were in arrears. The learned Rent Controller found that the respondents were in arrears of rent and, therefore, issued a direction to pay the rent regularly as contemplated by Section 7(1) of the said Act. The learned Rent Controller found as a fact that the rent was not deposited by the petitioners regularly as contemplated by Section 7(1) of the said Act and since rent was not regularly deposited within stipulated time, the decree for eviction was bound to be passed. The learned Member of the Additional President of the Tribunal, has considered this aspect and also found as a fact that the rent was not deposited within stipulated time and no sufficient cause is shown for not depositing the said amount. Since there are two concurrent finding of facts and it is not shown as to how they are perverse, I do not see any reason to admit the petition and the same is dismissed.
At the request of the Counsel for the petitioners, one month's time is granted for vacation of the suit house. SMA C. L. PANGARKAR, J.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.