IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 562 OF 2008 CYRIL MASCARENHAS AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus HARISH KENAUDEKAR ... Respondent Mr. S. D. Padiyar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar, Advocate with Ms. R. Kamat, Advocate for the Respondent. Coram:- A. P. DESHPANDE, J. Date:- 21st November, 2008 ORAL ORDER The present petitioners are tenants in occupation of premises owned by the respondent. In the year 1997, the respondent/landlord initiated proceedings by moving an eviction application under Section 23(1)(a)(ii) of the Rent Act. The said provisions enables a landlord to seek eviction of the tenant in case the premises are required by the Landlord for bonafide occupation. The family of the Landlord is said to comprise of seven persons including the parents and an unamrried sister. The premises in occupation of the Landlord are four rooms whereas the tenants are in occupation of two rooms. The Rent Controller, on appreciation of the material on record, chose to dismiss the application filed by the respondent/Landlord. Aggrieved thereby, the Respondent/Landlord carried an appeal before the Tribunal and during pendency of the appeal, the Respondent moved an application under Section 32(1) of the Act. 2. Section 32 of the Act provides that no tenant against whom the proceedings for eviction has been instituted by a landlord under this Act shall be entitled to contest the proceedings before the Controller or any appellate or revisional authority or to prefer any appeal or revision under this Act, unless he has paid to the landlord or deposits with the Controller or the appellate or revisional authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent due in respect of the building up to the date of payment or deposit and continues to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building, until the termination of the proceedings before the Controller or the appellate or revisional authority. 3. It is thus clear that once eviction proceedings are initiated, the tenant has no absolute right to contest the same but the right to contest is subject to compliance of the conditions of regular payment and/or deposit of the rent. The consequences for non-payment of the rent as mandated by Section 32(1) is set out in sub-section (4). Sub-section (4) lays down that if a tenant fails to deposit the rent as provided in foregoing provisions, the Controller or Appellate or Revisional Authority shall unless the tenant shows sufficient cause to the contrary, stop all further proceedings and make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. In the scheme of Section 32, the tenant's right to contest the proceedings is subject to the payment of rent regularly during the subsistence of the eviction proceedings and, consequently, in the event of failure of the tenant to pay the rent, he is obliged to show sufficient cause justifying non-payment, failing which, the eviction proceedings are to stop and the Controller or the appellate authority would issue direction to the tenant to put the Landlord in possession of the premises. The application moved by the respondent under section 32(4) has been allowed by the Appellate Tribunal who is seized of the appeal filed by the respondent for eviction of the present petitioners. 4. In reply to the application, the petitioners raised two submissions : (i) That their Lawyer did not advise them to deposit the rent during pendency of the proceedings for eviction and they being lay persons, did not know the obligation to deposit, more so the consequences of non-deposit; and (ii) The petitioners did try to pay the rent to respondent/Landlord but the Landlord did not accept the same; 5. The said cause shown by the petitioners was examined by the appellate authority and on facts it is held that the petitioners have failed to establish that they did try to tender the arrears of rent but the Landlord refused to accept the same. The Tribunal also disbelieved the reason for non-deposit being want of advise from the Advocate conducting the matter. It is relevant to note that the arrears of rent is for the period from the year 1997 till date i.e. over a period of ten years. No sufficient or just cause has been shown for non-payment over a period of more than ten years. It is difficult to find fault with the impugned Order which goes to hold that the present petitioners/tenants are guilty of deliberate and intentional non-payment of rent, though there exists a statutory obligation to pay the same under Section 32(1) of the Rent Act. 6. Perused the impugned Order. There being no merit in the Petition, the same is dismissed. At this stage, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are tenants since long in the subject premises and they need to be granted sufficient time to vacate. In the result, I pass the following order : ORDER The Order of eviction shall not be executed for a period of six months from today subject to the condition that the petitioners shall file an affidavit in this Court giving an undertaking that the petitioners would hand over vacant and peaceful possession of the premises to the respondent/Landlord on or before the expiry of a period of six months. They shall also undertake to pay the arrears of rent and the rent for a period of six months during which they are permitted to occupy the premises. The affidavit containing the undertaking shall be filed by the petitioners in this Court within a period of two weeks from today. Writ Petition is disposed off. A. P. DESHPANDE, J. arp/*