ORDER
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.
1. This petition arises from the judgment and order dated 15th March, 1995 passed in Eviction Appeal No. 29/91 by the Administrative Tribunal. By the impugned order, the tribunal has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 2nd July, 1990 by the Additional Rent Controller, Mapusa in Case No. RENT/17/85. By the said order, the Additional Rent Controller had allowed the application filed by the respondent No. 1 under section 32(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the said Act) and the proceedings in the said Rent case were ordered to be stopped and the petitioner was directed to put the respondent No. 1 in possession of the suit premises within one month from the date of service of the order.
2. The facts in brief relevant for the decision are that the respondent No. 1 herein filed eviction proceedings against the petitioner by an application dated 12-3-1985 on the ground of default in payment of rent for the period from 1-7-69 to 28-2-85 and secondly, on the ground of requirement of the premises for personal occupation. The Notice of the application for eviction was served upon the petitioner on 3-4-1985. The first date of hearing of the application was fixed on 24-4-85, on which day the petitioner filed an application stating that though the amount of arrears of rent claimed was incorrect, he was willing to deposit the same as he was a busy man and was not staying in Panaji and therefore had no time of litigation. He also expressed his willingness to deposit the cost of the application which could be determined by the Court. He further expressed his readiness and willingness to deposit Rs. 12/- per month towards the subsequent rent which would become due. The petitioner accordingly deposited the said amount of Rs. 2211/- for the period from 1st July, 1969 till 31st January, 1985. However, thereafter the respondent noticed that the rent was not deposited as required under the law and, therefore, filed an application dated 21-1-87 under section 32(4) of the said Act. In the said application it was stated that the rent for the months from April, 1985 to November, 1986 amounting to Rs. 240/-was deposited only on 26-9-86 and the same was therefore not valid and in accordance with the provisions of law and therefore action was required to be taken in terms of section 32(4) of the said Act. Pursuant to the service of notice of the said application, the petitioner replied to the same denying the fact that the petitioner was irregular in depositing the arrears of rent and that the chalans from the record disclosed that the petitioner had deposited the arrears of rent. It was submitted by the petitioner that the very fact that the respondent had withdrawn the deposited amount from time to time, disclosed that the respondent had acquiesced to the delay in depositing the rent by the petitioner and therefore the respondent was estopped from challenging the validity of the deposit.
3. The Additional Rent Controller, after bearing the parties, held that the petitioner had not shown any sufficient cause for not stopping the proceedings and therefore ordered the stopping of proceedings and ordered that the possession of the suit premises be delivered to the respondent. The appeal against the same by the petitioner was not fruitful and the tribunal also confirmed the findings arrived at by the Additional Rent Controller.
4. Upon hearing learned Advocates for the parties and on perusal of the records, it is seen that pursuant to the notice of the application under section 32(4) of the said Act, apart from mere denial of the claim of the respondent for exercising powers under section 32(4) of the said Act by the Rent Controller and claiming estoppel on the ground of withdrawal of the deposited amount by the respondent, no other cause was disclosed for non-stopping the proceedings under section 32(4) of the said Act consequent upon the failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the rent in accordance with the provisions of law. It cannot be disputed that once the proceedings for eviction by a tenant are instituted, it is incumbent upon the tenant to deposit all arrears of rent within one month from the date of service of the application as provided under section 32(1) of the said Act read with Rule 7 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1969 (hereinafter called the said Rules). That apart, as rightly submitted by the learned Advocate for the respondent, by order dated 1-9-85 passed by the Additional Rent Controller the petitioner was specifically informed about his liability to deposit the rent during the pendency of the proceedings every month in accordance with the provisions of law. The fact that the petitioner was also liable to pay such rent regularly was known to the petitioner is also evident from his own application dated 24-4-85. In fact, in the said application the petitioner had in no uncertain terms expressed his willingness and readiness to deposit the rent regularly per month as and when it would become due. There is no dispute that the rent was payable every month. It is also undisputed fact and a matter of record that the rent for the period from April, 1985 to November, 1986 was deposited on 26-9-86. Apparently, the same is not in accordance with the provisions contained in section 32(1) of the said Act read with Rule 7 of the said Rules.
5. As against these facts on record, the defence sought to be raised by the petitioner in answer to the notice under section 32(4) was only that of estoppel on account of withdrawal of rent amount by the respondent out of the amount deposited by the petitioner. The rent amount is the consideration payable by the petitioner for the occupation of the premises belonging to the respondent. Being so, it cannot be insisted upon under any circumstances by the petitioner that the petitioner would continue to occupy the premises without paying any consideration for such occupation to the respondent. The amount which is legally payable to the respondent if on deposit in the Court, is withdrawn by the respondent, that by itself cannot be said that it would amount to taking away the statutory rights ensured to the landlord under the Rent Act in the form of section 32 of the said Act. The provisions contained in section 32(4) of the said Act clearly ensures the landlord that the tenant is duly bound to pay the rent regularly during the pendency of the proceedings for eviction against the tenant. The provisions of section 32(1) read with Rule 7 of the said Rules provides that the tenant shall continue to deposit the rent regularly during the eviction proceedings in the Court. Any amount so deposited on account of statutory liability of a tenant which the landlord is legally otherwise entitled to recover on account of his or her premises being in occupation of the tenant, if withdrawn by the landlord that cannot in any way amount to estoppel against the landlord and against his right to invoke the provisions of law which entitles the landlord to seek intervention of the Rent Controller to stop the eviction proceedings and order immediate eviction of the tenant on account of default on the part of the tenant in depositing the rent. In fact, there has been no attempt on the part of the petitioner either before the Rent Controller or before the tribunal and even in this writ petition as to how and in what manner the principle of estoppel can arise in such situation to deny the right to the landlord to seek the statutory remedy available under the Rent Act.
6. There being no sufficient cause shown for non-stopping of The proceedings and in that regard both the courts below having arrived at concurrent findings on analysis of the materials on record, it is not permissible for this Court in exercise of Us jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution to reappreciate the materials and to arrive at different finding. Even otherwise, as the materials placed before this Court, there is no scope even to arrive at any other finding and that is clear from the fact that the respondent has not been able to disclose any sufficient cause in his reply to the application under section 32(4) of the said Act.
7. In the circumstances, therefore, there is no case made out for interference in the impugned order passed by the tribunal or by the Additional Rent controller.
8. The petition therefore fails. However, the time granted for delivery of possession of the suit premises by the petitioner shall be of three months, to be counted from the date of order of this Court.
9. Petition failed.