JUDGMENT
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.
1. The present petition is preferred against the order dated 29th March, 1993 passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Mormugao in Case No. BLDG/ MISC/1/93. By the said order the respondent No. 3 herein has stayed the order of eviction passed in Case No. BLDG/ARC-VS2/92 dated 25th February, 1993 and the matter was fixed for hearing pursuant to the application filed by the respondent No. 2 herein under Section 50 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 hereinafter called as ‘the Rent Act’, read with Order XXI Rules 99, 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
2. It is noticed from the records that, inspite of repeated opportunity being afforded to the petitioner, no steps were taken to serve respondent No.) and, therefore, the matter as far as the respondent No. 1 is concerned, was ordered to be dismissed.
3. The facts of the case in brief is that the petitioner is the owner of the building known as ‘Carolin Niketan’ and by lease dated 9th November, 1970 entered into between the late husband of the petitioner and late Salazar Sequeira E. Vaz, the husband of the respondent No. 1, the premises in the rear right wing on the ground floor were leased out initially for a period of 11 months commencing from 1st November, 1970 at a monthly rent of Rs. 150/-. The petitioner filed eviction proceedings against the respondent No. I on the ground of sublease of the premises to one Shri Bassuet Sequeira E. Vaz. The proceedings were filed against, the respondent No. 1 alone. After notice to the respondent No. 1 in the said proceedings and after recording evidence on behalf of the petitioner herein, the respondent No. 3 passed an order of eviction on 9th December, 1992 thereby directing the respondent No. 1 to hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the petitioner within 60 days from the receipt of the said order. From the said order of eviction it is seen that the trial proceeded ex parte against the respondent No. 1.
4. It is the case of the respondent No. 2 that one of the partners of that firm found a notice signed by one Mr. T.T. Tandel, Awal Karkun pasted on the door of the suit premises and the said notice was in respect of the eviction order passed by the respondent No. 3. Pursuant thereto the respondent No. 2 filed an application under Section 50 of the Rent Act read with Order XXI, Rules 99, 100 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure objecting to the execution of the eviction order on the ground that the respondent No. 2 is the tenant of the petitioner in respect of the suit premises for the last more than 20 years and was in fact paying the rent in respect of the suit premises to the petitioner. It is its further case that since 1990 the petitioner refused to accept the rent by cheques. An application under Section 18 of the Rent Act therefore was filed for deposit of the rent in the Court and the same was registered in the Court of respondent No. 3 as Building Case No. BLDG/ARC/V/13/92. Pursuant thereto the respondent No. 3 issued a notice dated 24th June, 1992 to the petitioner, which was duly served upon the petitioner herein. However, that matter remained undecided on account of ajournments sought by the petitioner herein on number of occasions. Meanwhile the said order of eviction was obtained by the petitioner which was objected to by the respondent No. 2 by its application dated 26th March, 1993, pursuant to which the order dated 29th March, 1993 was passed by the respondent No. 3 staying the execution proceedings.
5. Shri E.P. Lobo, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the Rent Controller had no jurisdiction to entertain the application filed by the respondent No. 2 herein since the respondent No. 3 cannot decide the issue as to whether the respondent No. 2 is the tenant of the premises or not in a proceedings under Section 50 of the Rent Act. Section 50 of the Rent Act does not empower the Rent Controller to entertain an application for obstruction of execution of the decree by a person who claims to be a tenant in respect of the suit premises independently of the person against whom the decree of eviction has been passed. He further contended that as per the provisions of the Rent Act, a sub-tenant is not a necessary party to the eviction proceedings and the proceedings can be proceeded with without making the sub-tenant a party to the proceedings. In support of his contention he relied upon the decision of Jagat Enterprises v. Anup Kumar Daw and Ors. .
He further contended that the respondent No. 3 having entertained the said application under Section 50 filed by the respondent No. 2 could not have stayed the execution proceedings of the eviction order passed against the respondent No.] which was obtained after adjudicating the issue regarding sub-letting by the respondent No. 1. According to Shri Lobo, the plea of the respondent No. 2 being that it is the tenant of the premises, such an issue cannot be agitated in a proceeding under Section 50 of the Rent Act.
6. Shri P.A. Kholkar, the learned advocate appearing for the respondent No. 2, on the other hand, submitted that in terms of Section 50 of the Rent Act, the Rent Controller enjoys all the powers of the Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. Therefore the Rent Controller is fully empowered to decide an issue as regards the claim of such applicant. According to Shri Kholkar, any person who is in possession of the premises can obstruct the execution of the eviction decree by filing an application under Section 50 and on such application being filed the Rent Controller is duty bound to consider the same. By the impugned order, according to Shri Kholkar, the Rent Controller has only stayed the execution of the eviction order and has ordered inquiry in terms of Section 50 with Order 21, Rule 99 of the Civil Procedure Code. Being so, it is an interim order and docs not affect the rights of the parties in any manner nor it decides anything concerning the rights of the parties to the suit premises. Hence, there is absolutely no justification for any interference. According to Shri Kholkar, no case is made out for interference as the Rent Controller has merely stayed the execution of the eviction order to inquire into the matter as regards the claim of the respondent No. 2, Shri Kholkar sought to rely on a Judgment of this Court in the matter of Shri Ubaldino Oliveira v. Shri Sadanand Ladu Borkar and Ors., reported in in support of his submission.
7. Upon hearing advoc1995(1) G.L.T. 318 ates for the parties and on going through the records it is seen that by the impugned Order the respondent No. 3 has merely stayed the execution of the eviction order and has ordered inquiry in terms of Section 50 of the Rent Act as regards the claim put forth by the respondent No. 2 to the suit premises. The said order has been passed pursuant to the application filed by the respondent No. 2 under Order XXI, Rule 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is seen that in terms of Section 50 of the Rent Act, the Rent Controller enjoys all the powers of the Civil Court and consequently those powers include the powers exercisable by the Civil Court under Order XXI of Civil Procedure Code. It is not in dispute that the original application for eviction was filed against the respondent No. I alone. Though in the original application the petitioner had stated that the respondent No. 1 had sub-let the suit premises to one Bossuet Sequeira E. Vaz without her express consent, neither Shri Bossuet Sequeira E. Vaz nor the respondent No. 2, of which undisputedly Bossuet Sequeirae a Vaz is the partner, was joined as party to the proceedings. The point whether a sub-tenant is a necessary party to such proceedings or not, is not relevant for the decision in the present case. However, the fact remains that the respondent No. 2 has filed an application under Section 18 of the Rent Act and the same was registered as BLDG/ARCV/ 13/92 and notice thereof was duly served upon the petitioner herein. This fact is not in dispute and the records also clearly disclose the same. Undisputedly, the said application under Section 18 had been filed by the respondent No. 2 herein and the person to whom the premises were stated to have been sub-let by the respondent No. 1 is one of the partners of the said firm. These facts disclose some interest of the respondent No. 2 in the suit premises. What is the nature of that interest, whether it is lawful or not, is yet to be decided since the claim of tenancy by the respondent No. 2 to the suit premises is disputed by the petitioner. Nevertheless, prima facie, it is apparent that the respondent No. 2 is in possession of the suit premises. As rightly contended by Shri Kholkar. this Court has already held in Ubaldino Oliveira’s case that an obstructor to a decree can make an application resisting the execution of the decree by which he is sought to be evicted from the premises and such objection is to be entertained in the course of execution process and to be decided by the executing Court. Section 50 of the Rent Act provides that an order of the Rent Controller can be executed in the same manner as a decree of a Civil Court and for that purpose the Rent Controller shall enjoy all the powers of the Civil Court. Being so, there is no substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for obstruction of execution of the decree from a person who claims tenancy right to the suit premises independently of the person against whom the decree of eviction has been passed. The decision relied upon by the petitioner in the matter of Jagat Enterprises has no application to the case in hand. The said decision was on the point whether a sub-tenant can insist upon being joined as a party to the proceedings or not. In the present case the point for consideration is not whether a sub-tenant can be joined as party to the proceedings or not, but whether the execution of a decree of eviction passed against the respondent No. 1 in respect of the suit premises can be obstructed by the respondent No. 2 on the ground that respondent No. 2 is the tenant in respect of the suit premises for the last more than 20 years. Indeed Shri Lobo did not dispute that a stranger can object to an execution of a decree but his only objection was that such an objection cannot be raised by a person claiming to be a tenant. Considering the decision of this Court in the matter of Ubaldino Oliveira’s case, it is difficult to accept the contention raised by Shri Lobo.
8. Besides as rightly contended by Shri Kholkar by the impugned order the Rent Controller has not decided the rights of the parties. The Rent Controller has merely stayed the execution of the decree and decided to look into the case pleaded by the respondent No. 2 regards its tenancy right in or to the suit premises. Viewed from this angle, it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioner that there has been any miscarriage of justice or that the respondent No. 3 has exercised the jurisdiction either not vested in him or has exercised the same illegally or arbitrarily or that the impugned order is contrary to any provisions of law. Being so the petitioner has not made out any case for interference in the impugned order of the respondent No. 3 and, hence, the petition is liable to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. Costs by the petitioner.