Aires Zacarias Teofilo Medeira vs Shri Filipe Correia

N.A. Britto, J.—Heard Ms. Pai Kir, the learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondent. The petitioner is facing eviction proceedings before the Rent Controller. His application dated 24/09/2007 for adjournment came to be rejected by order dated 26/09/2007. In rejecting the said application, the learned Rent Controller observed as follows:

On 11/09/2007, the Court granted last and final opportunity to the respondent and with the directions that if the respondent fails to lead evidence on the next date of hearing, the Court would close down the evidence of the respondent. Despite such instructions given to the respondent, again the Advocate for the respondent filed application seeking time on 24/09/2007 on the same ground of illness of the respondent annexing the Medical Certificate issued by the Doctor dated 7/09/2007 which only states that the respondent is under treatment as on 7/09/2007 and that the respondent may require to undergo surgery on his hip and knee in the future. The said certificate was issued by the doctor over 15 days prior to the hearing of 24/09/2007.

Learned Counsel on behalf of the petitioner submits that at least a last and final opportunity be granted to the petitioner to complete the evidence, otherwise the petitioner will have to suffer eviction.

The order dated 26/09/2007 shows that a last and final opportunity was granted to the petitioner but the petitioner did not take it seriously. In fact, it appears that the petitioner was not at all serious in leading evidence in the eviction proceedings filed against him and sought adjournments after adjournments. There had to be some end to the so called last opportunity. The learned Administrative Tribunal in its order dated 28/01/2008 noted thus: On the other side, Shri U. Bhembre, the learned Advocate for the Respondent submitted that the Applicant has left suit house 20 years back having no interest in suit house. The Respondent/original Applicant has completed his evidence on 1/10/2004 and the matter was posted for Respondent''s evidence on 6/11/2004. From that time till date the Applicant has avoided to lead evidence till date. Summons were sent to all the witnesses and 23 dates have been fixed for Applicant''s evidence which has been adjourned every time on the same ground of sickness of the Applicant. The Rent Controller closed the evidence on 9.4.2007. Against the order of the Rent Controller dated 9.4.2007, the Applicant filed a Revision before this Tribunal which was partly allowed and the matter was remanded to Ld. Rent Controller to give the Applicant a last opportunity to lead evidence and dispose off the matter within 3 months. He submitted that after receiving the file from this Tribunal on remand, the Ld. Rent Controller has held as many as four hearings and every time the Applicant sought time on the same ground of sickness of the Applicant. The Applicant was asked by the Rent Controller to file application for appointment of Commissioner to record evidence of Applicant at his residence, the Applicant did not take any steps for appointing Commissioner which gives a clear indication that the Applicant is intentionally avoiding recording of his evidence to delay the matter. Since he has no interest in the suit house and wants to harass the Respondent by avoiding handing of possession, and therefore, the Rent Controller has rightly closed the evidence and no interference is required in the impugned order of the Rent Controller. Hence, he prayed that the Revision be dismissed.

In my view, the orders of both the Authorities below cannot be faulted. Considering the number of opportunities granted and availed by the petitioner from time to time in the first round and then in the second round after the petitioner approached the Administrative Tribunal, the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court. The petitioner ought to have shown some interest in proceeding with his evidence, at least after the order of the Tribunal. But he did not take the matter seriously. Somewhere the word last ought to have meant last. Inspite of seeking adjournments after adjournments, the petitioner has chosen to approach this Court only to put the respondent in further inconvenience. This is not a fit case to entertain this petition, in extraordinary jurisdiction. It needs to be dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 5,000/-, which the petitioner is directed to pay to the respondent within a period of 30 days.