IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 391 OF 2007 SOCIEDADE VERLEKAR THROUGH ITS ADMINISTRATOR SHRI ASHOK ROULU VERLEKAR, MARGAO-GOA. ... Petitioner Versus BRITISH INDIA GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., AND 8 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. N. S. Verlekar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mrs. A. A. Agni, Advocate for the respondent No.4. Coram:- R. C. CHAVAN, J. Date:- 11th August, 2008 P.C. Unwittingly, the petitioner Landlord seeks by this petition to further postpone the termination of its endeavor to throw out the tenant. The Landlord had began his odyssey to secure possession of premises in question very long ago. He made a grievance in the past about non-payment of rent by the tenant, entitling him to have tenant's defence shut out under section 32 of Goa Rent Control Act. The order passed by the Rent Controller had been challenged before the Administrative Tribunal initially, by revision application No. 1/75, which was decided by the Tribunal on 10.3.1983. The Tribunal's order was questioned in Writ Petition No.87/83, which was disposed of by on 12.4.84. A Letters Patent Appeal filed by the petitioner was also disposed of on 23.3.87 by the High Court. The Landlord approached the Supreme Court by filing C.A.No.2379/87, which was disposed of by the Supreme Court on 4.3.1998. The Supreme Court observed that there was no cause for interference in the orders and the ends of justice will be met, if it directed the Rent Controller to dispose of the main case, as expeditiously as possible and within 6 months from the appearance of the parties, before the Rent Controller on 15.4.1998. This digression as may be seen lasted from 1982 to 4.3.1998. 2. Thereafter, the Landlord filed an application before the Rent Controller on 15.4.1998 itself, which is the date on which the parties were to appear in pursuance of the orders of the Supreme Court. By this application under section 32 of the Goa Rent Control Act, the Landlord again sought an order directing the tenant to vacate the premises on account of default in payment on rent from April 1982. The tenant deposited Rs.33,000/- by challan dated 6.5.98. The tenant filed a reply to this application. After considering the contentions of the parties, the Rent Controller, by his order dated 15.7.2002, held that the tenant was required to pay rent in arrears from April 1979 to April 1998, amounting to Rs.38,000/- and not Rs.32,000/-, while the tenant has deposited rent due only from March 1982 to February 1998. He, therefore, passed an order under clause 4 of section 32 of Goa Rent Control Act directing the tenant to vacate the premises. This order was challenged by the tenant before the Administrative Tribunal, which set aside the said order and directed the Rent Controller to dispose of the matter on merits within 6 months. Aggrieved thereby, the landlord is before this Court. 3. I have heard Shri Verlekar, leaned Counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Agni, learned Counsel for the respondent No.4, at sufficient length. The present petition arises out of order passed by the Rent Controller on 15.7.2002, on an application filed by the petitioner himself. Now by this application dated 15.4.1998, the Landlord had in fact sought ejectment of the tenant on the ground that the tenant had not deposited the rent since April, 1982. In the reply filed by the tenant, the tenant had pointed out that sum of Rs.33,000/- had been deposited by Challan dated 6.5.98, obviously after this application was filed. As mentioned earlier, the parties were before the Administrative Tribunal, this Court and the Apex Court during this period. Whether this amounts to justification for the tenant to avoid depositing the rent regularly, may be a different issue. However, it would be difficult to deny that after the Apex Court directed on 4.3.1998 that the parties should appear before the Rent Controller for a final adjudication i.e. adjudication on merits of the matter and not on default, the tenant's depositing sum of Rs.33,000/- which covers rent for the period mentioned in landlord's application, would rule out lack of bonafides or intention to pay. 4. In any case, that is not ground on which the Rent Controller shut out the defence of the respondent tenant. He held that while sum of Rs.38,000/- was due, tenant had deposited only 32,000/-. Had the tenant deposited Rs.38,000/-, the Rent Controller would possibly have no grievance. Now this payment has to be seen in context of the application of Landlord himself, where the Landlord had claimed that the tenants was in arrears of rent from April, 1982. Therefore, the tenant covered up this default. This shows bonafides of the tenant. If there is some inaccuracy, it cannot be sufficient to shut out the defence of the tenant. The Administrative Tribunal, therefore, rightly interfered in the order passed by the Rent Controller holding that the Rent Controller had no business to arrive at a figure of Rs.38,000/- as the amount of rent in arrears. The order of the Tribunal, therefore, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity to warrant invocation of jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. The parties would do well to see that the matter is finally disposed of by the Rent Controller as directed by the Apex Court 10 years ago. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. R. C. CHAVAN, J. SMA