IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 182 OF 2010 SMT. EROMILA D'COSTA ... Petitioner Versus SHRI SHOLLET PEREIRA, ... Respondent Mr. R. Naik, Advocate for the petitioner. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 19th October, 2010 P.C. Heard Mr. R. Naik, learned Advocate for the petitioner. 2. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the Judgment and Order dated 8.12.2009 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Panaji in Eviction Appeal no. 3/2008 dismissing the appeal preferred against Judgment and Order dated 21.1.2008 passed by the Rent Controller, Margao in case no. BLDG/50/RC/2002. 3. The respondent filed an application for eviction against the petitioner under section 22(2) of the Goa Daman and Diu( Lease, Rent and Eviction ) Control Act, 1968 on the several grounds including non payment of the rent. Thereafter during the pendency of the proceedings the petitioner committed several defaults in payment of the rent and inspite of opportunities given the petitioner/tenant did not deposit the rents due. Both the Tribunals below have concurrently held that the defence of the petitioner that she was ill and as such she could not pay the rent was without any merit. 4. The record also discloses that there were consistent defaults in payment of rents by the petitioner. This being the position, in my considered opinion both the Tribunals could not have said to have erred in allowing the application under 32(4) filed by the respondent. No jurisdictional error has been committed by both the Tribunals while passing the impugned Judgments nor there is any error of law apparent on the face of the record justifying exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court. Therefore, no interference is warranted by this Court against the impugned judgment. 5. Writ Petition, therefore, stands dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. vn