IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 480 OF 2010 SOCIEDADE VERLEKAR THROUGH ADMINISTRATOR ASHOK VERLEKAR ... Petitioner Versus SHRI. UMANATH KHARANGATE (EXPIRED) AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr.G. Shirodkar, advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 14th December, 2010 P.C: Heard Mr. Shirodkar, learned counsel for the petitioner.] 2. By this petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India the petitioner challenges orders dated 19/3/2003 passed by the Rent Controller and Deputy Collector, Margao, in Case no.BLDG/72/80 and judgment and order dated 8/4/2010 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Panaji in Eviction Appeal no.78/2003 dismissing the application filed by the petitioner under Section 22(2)(a) of the Goa Rent Control Act,1968. ("The Act" for short). 3. The petitioner filed Eviction proceedings against the respondents on the ground of non-payment of rent. The defence of the defendant/tenant was that rent amounts due were sent to the petitioner but the same were refused by the landlord and as such, he was not in arrears of rent. 4. Both the Tribunals below have concurrently held that the tenant remitted the rents due by money order but the same were refused by the landlord and therefore it could not be said that the tenant/defendant was in arrears of rent. 5. Mr. Shirodkar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner urged that the tenant ought to have resorted to Section 18 of the Act by making an application for deposit of the rent in the event the landlord refused to accept the rent and in the absence of such an application, the petitioner is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant on the ground of default in payment of rent. 6. No other ground has been urged in support of the petition. 7. I am unable to accept the submission of Mr. Shirodkar that the landlord on refusal of the rents sent by the tenant by money order is to be held to be in arrears of rent and hence the petitioner is entitled to seek eviction of the tenant under Section 18 of the Act. 8. Section 18 of the Act is an enabling provision which gives opportunity to the tenant to deposit the rents due in the event the landlord refuses to accept the rent sent by money order. 9. In any case, having regard to the concurrent findings recorded by both the Tribunals below, I am of the considered opinion that this is not a fit case in which this Court should exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. ap/-