IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA LETTER PATENT APPEAL NO. 6 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 392 OF 2007 MR. SWAMI RAMAVATARA BHARATI REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY MR. SHYAM RAMAVATARA BHARATI AND ANR., ... Appellants Versus MRS. CARMINA MONICA D'SOUZA THROUGH ATTORNEY TITO GOES PROENCA AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. V. P. Thali, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. M. B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Coram:- R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR & S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ. Date:- 28th July, 2008 P.C. Heard. The appellants seek to challenge the order dated 17.4.2008 passed in Writ Petition No.392/2007, on the ground that the authorities below failed to take note of the fact that it was consequent to the provisions under Section 32(3) of the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 ('the Rent Act' for short), that the appellants had no occasion to pay certain amount of the rent and it was only after necessary decision in terms of Section 32(3) by the Administrative Tribunal on 11.7.03, the appellants immediately thereafter deposited the entire arrears of rent based on the decision under Section 32(3). 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection about the non-maintainability of the appeal on the ground that the order passed by the learned Single Judge was in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 3. It is not in dispute that the matter was brought before the learned Single Judge soon after disposal of the application under Section 32(4) of the Rent Act and the appeal against the said order by the Administrative Tribunal. Obviously, therefore, the proceedings before the learned Single Judge were in exercise of powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. That Apart, the ground on which the LPA is filed, was not raised before the learned Single Judge or even before the appellate Authority i.e. the Administrative Tribunal. There are concurrent findings of fact by the fact finding authorities about the failure on the part of the appellants to deposit the rent in time. The records also disclose that there was an admission on the part of the appellants in the civil proceedings, namely Regular Civil Suit No.243/98 about the quantum of rent amount. In the background of these facts, and even on merits, we do not find any case for interference in the impugned order, apart from the fact that the impugned order was passed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, therefore, the LPA does not lie against the impugned order. 5. In the result, the appeal is rejected in limine. 6. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the appellants prays for the stay of the execution proceedings. We have not passed any executable order and, therefore, there is no question of granting stay of the order passed today. Therefore, appellants prays for stay of execution of eviction order. However, on taking instructions from the appellants, the learned Counsel for the appellants states that the appellants are not prepared to give any undertaking including that they would not induct any third party in the suit premises. In the circumstances, we do not find any case for the stay of the execution of the Judgment. The prayer, therefore, stands rejected. Appeal disposed of. R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. ssm.