IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 693 OF 2008 SHRI. ROSARIO RODRIGUES (DECEASED) THROUGH LR\'S ... Petitioner Versus SHRI INACIO PLACIDINHO DOS MARTIRES FERNANDES (DECEASED) THROUGH LR\'S ... Respondent Mr. D. J. Pangam,Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. M. B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. Date:- 15th April, 2009 P.C. The writ petition has challenged the order dated 04.03.2002 of the Rent Controller and Deputy Collector, Margao, Goa. The order is passed on an application made by the respondents under Section 32(4) of the Rent Control Act. That application is essentially for eviction on account of non-deposit of the rents for certain specified months as well as arrears payable after the final order came to be passed on 26.02.2001 under Section 32(3) of the Said Act. 2. It is contended that though the petitioner had produced whatever challans that the petitioner had to show deposit of the rents, certain other challans were left to be produced. The petitioner had applied to the Rent Controller for inspecting the register of the Rent Controller to ascertain further challans, if any, as would prove the deposit of rents. That application has not been allowed. 3. It may be seen that that could have been the petitioner's secondary evidence and perhaps upon seeing the register, further challans may have been brought to light. 4. However, the default is not only the one which could have been substantiated by documentary evidence. There is an admitted default in payment of the rent ordered to be paid after the final order came to be passed on 26.02.2001. That order requires the petitioner to pay/ deposit an amount of Rs.300/- per month in the three succeeding months i.e. in March, April and May 2001. The petitioner has admitted the deposit of rent @ Rs.100/- per month which according to him, was the rent payable and not @ Rs.300/- per month. This was after the order passed against him. The challans bearing Nos. 196, 307 and 432 show this aspect clearly. This aspect has been admitted. It is the petitioner's case that he was justified in paying rent @ Rs.100/- per month instead of @ Rs.300/- per month as he was ordered since he had challenged that order. However, thereafter, he had made payment of deposit of rent. The fact remains that upon admitted facts, the case of the respondent that the arrears payable under order dated 26.2.2001, is not paid within 30 days, is seen admitted by the petitioner. Consequently, the entire payment of arrears, as strictly required to be made, is not made. Hence, the order cannot be challenged. The writ petition is dismissed. SMT. R. S. DALVI, J. SMA