Holding

The Supreme Court held that the findings of the Additional Rent Controller and Administrative Tribunal on bonafide personal need were correct, that Section 23A(3) applies to pending proceedings, and that the landlord’s death does not extinguish the entitlement.

Summary

The case concerned an eviction petition filed by the landlord, a retired government servant, seeking possession of a flat for his and his family's bonafide personal need. During the pendency, the landlord and his wife fell ill and the Act was amended by inserting Section 23A(3), which allows retired government employees to obtain possession. The Additional Rent Controller and the Administrative Tribunal held that the landlord’s need was genuine and that the amendment applied retrospectively to the pending case. The High Court set aside those findings without reasons. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the lower authorities’ findings were correct, that Section 23A(3) was applicable to pending proceedings, and that the landlord’s death did not extinguish the entitlement, thereby setting aside the High Court’s order and restoring the eviction decree.

Issues considered

The applicability of Section 23A(3) of the Goa Daman & Diu Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968 to pending eviction proceedings
Whether the landlord’s bonafide personal need for occupation was established under Section 23(1)(a)(i)
The effect of the landlord’s death on the continuance of his bonafide need
The correctness of the High Court’s setting aside of the findings of the Additional Rent Controller and Administrative Tribunal

Subjects

rent controlevictionbonafide personal needSection 23A(3)retrospective amendmentlandlord deathGoa Daman & Diu Building ActAdditional Rent ControllerAdministrative Tribunal

Judgment

A USHA P. KUVELKAR AND ORS.
v.
RAVINDRA SUBRAI DAL VI

NOVEMBER 20, 2007
B
[G.P. MATHUR AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.)

Rent Control and Eviction:
c Goa Daman and Diu Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control
Act, 1968-s. 23(1)(a){i) and 23A(3)--Eviction petition under
s.23(1)(a){i) by Government servant on the ground of bonafide
personal need-On introduction of s. 23A(3) amendment application
filed seeking eviction under s.23A(3) and also on subsequent facts of
D illness oflandlord and his wife-Eviction decree by Authorities below-
Set aside by High Court without giving any reasons and matter remitted
back-On appeal, held: Authorities below held that the bonafide
personal need of landlord was proved-ARC considered s.23A(3)
extensively and correctly gave finding thats. 23A(3) was operative and
E effective from 22. 2.1988 and was applicable to pending proceedings-
Landlord-Government servant had retired from service on 31. 5.1983
and had no house where the suit premises existed-Thus, s. 23A(3) is
applicable to the instant proceedings-Also. death oflandlord during
the pendency of litigation would not make difference as landlord
; .
F sought possession for himself and also his family members-Thus,
orders ofAuthorities below upheld.

Original landlord filed eviction petition against the respondent-
tenant on the ground of his own bonafide personal need and also of his
G family members. During pendency of the eviction petition, landlord and
his wife started suffering from ailments for which they required
continuous treatment of the doctor in Panaji which was away from his
own house in Ponda city. Also, there was amendment to the Act bys.
23A of the Goa Daman & Diu Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control
H 324
--{
USHA P. KUVELKAR v. RAVINDRA SUBRAI DALVI 325

Act, 1968 which came into force from 22.2.1988. In view of the A
amendment, landlord who was an employee of the State Government
and had duly retired and required premises for his bonafide occupation
or any member of his family could seek the eviction. The present
landlord being retired Government servant, having no house at Panaji
filed an amendment application also raising the additional ground in view B
of the amendment in Section 23 A. Both the Additional Rent Controller
and the Appellate Authority allowed the application under section
23(1)(a)(i) as also section 23A(3) of the Act holding the need of the
landlord to be bonqfide. The Respondent filed a revision petition against
the orders of Additional Rent Controller and Writ Petition against the C
orders of Administrative Tribunal. The High Court set aside the orders
of the authorities below and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.
During pendency ofthe litigation the landlord expired. Hence the present
appeal by the legal heirs of the landlord.
D
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The findings of the Additional Rent Controller as also
the Tribunal on the bonafide need of the landlord are correct and the
High Court erred in setting aside the concurrent findings of fact that
too without giving any reasons worth the name. Thus, theJudgmentof E
High Court is set aside and that of the Additional Rent Controller and
the Administrative Tribunal are restored.
[Paras 10 and 13] [332-H; 333-A; 336-C)
2.1. The findings of the High Court that the order of Additional F
Rent Controller is cursory and sketchy and that Additional Rent
Controller has nottaken into account various aspects pertaining to the
dispute cannot be concurred with. The order of Additional Rent
Controller suggests that he not only meticulously referred to the
pleadings of the parties in detail but discussed the whole evidence G
whereafter he recorded finding to the effect that the landlord was
suffering from heart problem and his wife was suffering from
Rheumatoid disease that required the medical treatment from the doctor
at Panaji and that for that purpose they were required to live at Panaji
instead of taking stress and strain of traveling from Ponda to Panaji. H
326 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A Furthermore, the applicant was a Govemrr. nt servant having retired
from service in 1983 and he was not having any residential
accommodation in or around Panaji City. Thus, the Additional Rent
Controller has given a proper finding of fact under Section 23(1 )(a)(i)
of the Goa Daman & Diu Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control
B Act, 1968. Administrative Tribunal confirmed the findings offact on the
question ofsection 23(1 )(a)(i) and held that the landlord had proved his
bonafide need for personal occupation and that the need of the landlord
was genuine, honest and in good faith.
[Paras 6 and 8) (331-B-D; 332-BJ
c 2.2. The original landlord expired only after the eviction order
passed by the Additional Rent Controller. This is apart from the fact
that the landlord had sought the possession not only for himself but also
for his family members. There is a clear reference in Section 23(1 )(a)(i)
D regarding occupation of the family members of the landlord. Thus, it
cannot be accepted that with the death oflandlord, the need had expired
with him and that the question will have to be examined again regarding
the bonafide personal need of the landlord. [Para 11 J (333-F-G; BJ

Shakuntala Bai and Ors. v. Narayan Das and Ors., (2004) 5 SCC
E 772, relied on.

P. V Papanna v. Padmanabhaiah, (1994) 2 SCC 316; Shanti/al
Thakordas v. Chimanlal Magan/al Telwala, (1976) 4 SCC 417 and Phool ...
Rani v. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia, (1973) 1SCC688, referred to. ,· •
F
2.3. From the language of sub-section 23A(3)(c) it is clear that the
section was clearly applicable to the pending proceedings like the instant
one. It is obvious that the amendment application was filed by the
landlord on 8.2.1989. The Additional Rent Controller had considered
G section 23A(3) extensively and recorded a specific finding in favour of
the landlord that section 23A was operative and effective from
22.2.1988. There can be no doubt that the provision was applicable to
the pending proceedings and as such the Additional Rent Controller was
right in accepting the case of the landlord to the effect that firstly he
was a government servant having retired on 31.5.1983, secondly he had
H
___(
r

USHA P. KUVELKAR v. RAVINDRA SUBRAI DALVI 327

no house at Panaji where the concerned residential premises existed A
and thirdly that he wanted the house for his own bona.fide occupation.
Therefore, it cannot be said that section 23A(3) was not applicable to
the present proceedings. The judgment of the High Court is woefully
wanting on this aspect. [Paras 7and12] (331-F; 335-F, G]
B
2.4. Both the Orders below were satisfactory. On this backdrop
the order of the High Court appears to be sketchy and laconic. Beyond
saying that the Additional Rent Controller has not applied his mind, the
High Court has not considered anything. As regards section 23A(3),
High Court actually avoided to give a finding whether it is retrospective C
or prospective by merely saying that the Tribunal had not given that
finding. It was not necessary for the Tribunal to give that finding at all
for the simple reason that the appeal against the order passed under
section 23A(3) was not maintainable at all. The High Court completely
ignored the fact that there was a Civil Revision against that finding. Even D
assuming that such a Civil Revision was maintainable, the High Court
was bound to consider the question of its prospective or retrospective
operation. High Court remanded the proceedings in the Civil Revision
to the Additional Rent Controller. At the same time, the High Court
remanded the proceedings in the writ petition to the Tribunal for E
adjudication. Further, at the same time, a fresh opportunity has been
given to the parties to lead evidence. It is not known as to how the
Administrative Tribunal, which is an Appellate Authority would be taking
the evidence. The judgment of High Court was completely erroneous.
[Para 9) (332-C-G) F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 5326 of
2007.
From the Judgment and final Order dated 6.10.2006 of the High
Court of Bombay at Goa in C.R.A. No. 28/2003 and W.P. No. 431/ G
2003.
Dhruv Mehta, Yashraj Singh Deora and Harshvardhan Jha (for K.L.
Mehta & Co.) for the Appellants.
Siddharth Bhatnagar and T. Mahipal for the Respondent. H
328 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.
v

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
V.S. SIRPURKAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. In this appeal the legal heirs of the Original Landlord have come
up to challenge the judgment of the High Court of Bombay at Goa,
B whereby the learned Single Judge of that Court set aside the orders of
the two authorities below and remanded the matters for fresh adjudication.
The tenant-respondent herein had filed a Civil Revision Application as also
the Writ Petition and it was by a common judgment that the said Civil
Revision and the Writ Petition came to be disposed of. The basic facts
c are as follows.
3. That Late Prabhakar Govind Sinai Kuvelkar was, admittedly, the
owner of the premises in question being Flat No.C-S-40(5). This was a
flat in Cooperative Housing Society called Adarsha Cooperative Housing
D Society Ltd., Caranzalem, Goa. The said flat was leased out to the tenant-
respondent herein for an initial period of 11 months vide Lease Deed
dated 31.12.1977 and the said tenancy was continued by the landlord-
appellant even after the expiry of l lmonths as he was unable to occupy
the said flat at that point of time. An application came to be filed on
E 3. 7.1986 being Eviction Case No.8 of 1987 before the Additional Rent
Controller, North Goa, Panaji on the ground that the said premises was
required for his own personal occupation and also for the members of
his family. It was also alleged that the tenant-respondent was in arrears
of rent and had also defaulted in making payment of municipal tax. During ) -

F the pendency of the eviction petition, the landlord-appellant started
suffering from heart problems and required continuous treatment of Dr.
S.V. Bhandare of Panaji and, therefore, preferred an amendment
application to bring on record the subsequent facts as also to substantiate
the claim of his own personal requirement. It was also pointed out that
G the wife of the landlord-appellant had developed Rheumatoid disease and
was also under the constant care of Dr. S.V. Bhandare of Panaji. The r
landlord-appellant pointed out that on account of the above ailment, the
need to shift to Panaji became even more acute. The landlord also pleaded
in the said amendment application a new ground which became available
H in view of amendment of Section 23-A of the Goa Daman & Diu Building
-f
USHA P. KUVELKAR v. RAVINDRA SUBRAI DALVI 329
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
(Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as A
"the Act") introduced during the pendency of the eviction case. This
amendment to the Section came into force with effect from 22.2.1988
and by the said amendment a right was provided to the landlord to recover
immediate possession of the premises if such landlord was an employee
of the State Government and had duly retired and required the premises B
for personal bon.afide occupation for himself or any member of his family.
In fact the amendment provided for summary procedure for eviction. It
was pointed out that the landlord had retired from service on 31.5.1983
and as such required the premises for his own bonafide occupation.
c
4. Voluminous evidence came to be introduced about the critical
medical condition of the landlord and that of his wife by filing medical
certificates issued by Dr. S.V. Bhandare and by examining him in support
of the need on the part of the landlord to stay at Panaji to avoid stress
and strain of frequent traveling. This was opposed by the tenant-respondent D
herein on the ground that there were no such medical problems on the
part of the landlord and his wife and the house in question was also not
convenient as it was on second floor. The landlord also reiterated that he
was a retired State Government servant and had no house at Panaji though
he owned house in Ponda city, away from Panaji and that he required E
the house for his bonafide occupation. On this basis the Additional Rent
Controller considered the entire evidence and allowed the application. The
appeal filed by the tenant-respondent before the Appellate Authority was
also dismissed. Thus on facts both the authorities held the need of the
landlord to be bonafide and also accepted the contention based on Section F
23A(3) of the Act. It was also held that the landlord had retired as a
Government servant and since he did not have any other house in Goa
and wanted to stay bon.afide in his house at Goa, he was justified in making
the application for eviction. Thus, the application was allowed by both
the courts below under Section 23(1)(a)(i) as also Section 23A(3) of the G
Act. The Appellate court also pointed that in respect of the findings of
the Additional Rent Controller on the contention based on Section 23A(3),
no appeal lied against the orders passed under Section 23A(3) which was
· barred specifically under Section 23A(l)(3A)(h) of the Act.
H
)-
"
330 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A 4. The tenant-resj'londent preferred a Petition against the concurrent
orders of the Additional Rent Controller and Administrative Tribunal, Goa,
Daman & Diu at Panaji. The writ petition came to be filed against the
finding under Section 23(l)(a)(i), while subsequently a Revision Petition
was filed against the findings under Section 23A(3) of the Act as recorded
B by the Rent Controller. lbe High Court allowed both the petitions and in
so far as the Revision Petition is concerned, the matter has been ordered
to be remanded back to Additional Rent Controller, whereas in so far as
the Writ Petition is concerned, the matter has been remanded to the
Administrative Tribunal. It is this common judgment which falls for our
C consideration in the present appeal at the instance of the Legal Heirs of
the original landlord since it is reported that during the pendency the
landlord had expired.
5. Shri Dhruv Mehta, the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of
D the landlord-appellant firstly contends that the High Court has gravely erred
in setting aside the findings of fact recorded by the Additional Rent
Controller and the Appellate Authority under Section 23(1)(a)(i) of the
Act whereby both the authorities had concurrently found that the bona.fide
personal need of the landlord has been proved. He also invited our
E attention to the fact that the amended Section 23A was applicable
specifically to the pending proceedings also and as such the Additional
Rent Controller was perfectly justified in granting the application on the
additional ground raised by way of an amendment under Section 23A of
the Act. As against this the learned counsel for the tenant-respondent ' .
F supported the order of the High Court and pointed out that the amended
Section 23A was not available to the landlord and the Additional Rent
Controller could not have given the relief under that Section and, therefore,
the remand was justified. It was also suggested that Section 23A(3) was
not retrospective and did not apply to the pending proceedings and that
G because of the further amendment to that Section in the year 1994, the
landlord had lost the right as the categories of landlords named in that
amended Section were amended and the Government Servant was
removed therefrom. Learned counsel also feebly tried to argue that since
during the pendency of the appeal the original landlord had expired, there
H. was no question of his bonafide need remaining alive and that the High
-( I

USHA P. KUVELKAR v. RAVINDRA SUBRAI DALVI 331
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
Court was justified in remanding the matter. A
6. We have carefully seen all the three orders, i.e., of Additional Rent
Controller, Administrative Tribunal and that of the High Court. We find
ourselves unable to agree with the findings of the High Court in para 3 of
its judgment that the order of the Additional Rent Controller is cursory B
-I and sketchy and that the Additional Rent Controller has not taken into
account various aspects pertaining to the dispute. On the other hand a
glance at the order of the Additional Rent Controller suggests that he has
not only meticulously referred to the pleadings of the parties in detail but
has discussed the whole evidence whereafter he has recorded finding to C
the effect that the landlord was suffering from heart problem and his wife
was suffering from Rheumatoid disease that required the medical treatment
from Dr. S.V. Bhandare from Panaji and that for that purpose they were
required to live at Panaji instead of taking stress and strain of traveling
from Ponda to Panaji. It was also recorded by the Additional Rent D
Controller that the applicant was a Government servant having retired from
service in 1983 and he was not having any residential accommodation in
or around Panaji City. The Additional Rent Controller thus, in so far as
·. the merits of the matter under Section 23(1 )(aXi) are concerned, has given
a proper finding of fact. E
\ 7. In so far as amended Section 23A(3) is concerned, the Additional
R~nt Controller has considered the whole Section and has recorded a
~~ific finding in favour of the landlord. The Additional Rent Controller
has also considered the contention raised by the tenant that the amended
Section would not be applicable to the case of the landlord because he F
had retired earlier on 31.5.1983 and has correctly given a finding that
Section 23A is operative and effective from 22.2.1988. The Additional
Rent Controller has correctly held that since the amendment was made
applicable even to the pending proceedings, the present case would be
covered by the amendment. It was not disputed very seriously that the G
....,. . landlord was in fact the Government servant and had retired from service
on 31.5.1983. therefore, in our opinion on both the counts the landlord-
appeilant had proved his case.
8. We have carefully seen the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal H
332 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A also which judgment shows that the Tribunal has confinned the findings
of fact firstly on the question of Section 23(l)(a)(i) and held that the
landlord had proved his bonafide need for personal occupation. The
Tribunal has also referred to the medical certificate (Exhibit 4) in respect
of the landlord himself and medical certificate (Exhibit 5) in respect of his
B wife. It has also referred to the evidence of AWl Shyam Bhandary who
has issued those certificates. In paras 7, 8 and 9 of the judgment the
Appellate Tribunal has correctly considered the need independently of the
Rent Controller's order. He has also correctly held that the need of the
landlord was genuine, honest and in good faith.
c
9. We are fully satisfied with both the orders. On this backdrop we
find the order of the High Court to be sketchy and laconic. Beyond saying
that the Additional Rent Controller has not applied his mind, the High Court
has not considered anything. As regards Section 23A(3), the High Court
D has actually avoided to give a finding whether it is retrospective or
prospective by merely saying that the Tribunal had not given that finding.
In our opinion it was not necessary for the Tribunal to give that finding at
all for the simple reason that the appeal against the order passed under
Section 23A(3) was not maintainable at all. The High Court completely
E ignored the fact that there was a Civil Revision against that finding. Even
assuming that such a Civil Revision was maintainable, the High Court was
bound to cons~der' the question of its prospective or retrospective
operation. Very strangely, the High Court has remanded the proceedings
in the Civil Revision to the Additional Rent Controller. At the same time,
F the High Court has remanded the proceedings in the writ petition to the
Administrative Tribunal for adjudication. Further, at the same time, a fresh
opportunity has been given to the parties to lead evidence. We do not
know as to how the Administrative Tribunal, which is an Appellate
Authority would be taking the evidence. In our opinion, the judgment of
G the High Court is completely en-oneous.
I0. We are convinced that the findings of the learned Additional Rent
Controller as also the Administrative Tribunal on the bonafide need of
the landlord are correct and the High Court has gravely erred in setting
aside the concurrent findings Of fact that too without giving any reasons
H
USHA P. KUVELKAR v. RAVINDRA SUBRAI DALVI 333
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
worth the name. Therefore, on that question itself the landlord-appellant A
(his legal heirs) should succeed.
11. It was tried to be argued by the learned counsel for the
respondent that since the landlord had died, the need had expired with
him and that the question will have to be examined again regarding the B
bonafide personal need of the landlord. The question is no more res
integra and is covered by the decision of this Court in Shakuntala Bai
& Ors. v. Narayan Das & Ors., [2004] 5 SCC 772. This Court has
observed:
" .... The bonafide need of the landlord has to be examined as on C
the date of institution of the proceedings and if a decree for eviction
is passed, the death of the landlord during the pendency of the
appeal prefen-ed by the tenant will make no difference as his heirs
are fully entitled to defend the estate."
D
In the same decision a contrary note expressed by this Court in P. V
Papanna v. Padmanabhaiah, [1994] 2 SCC 316 was held to be in the
nature of an obiter. This Court in Shakuntala Bai & Ors. (supra) referred
to the decision in Shanti/al Thakordas v. Chimanlal Magan/al Telwala,
[1976] 4 SCC 417 and specifically observed that the view expressed in E
Shanti/al Thakordas 's case did not, in any manner, affect the view
expressed in Phool Rani v. Naubat Rai Ahluwalia, [1973] 1 SCC 688
to the effect that where the death of landlord occurs after the decree for
possession has been passed in his favour, his legal heirs are entitled to
defend the further proceedings like an appeal and the benefit accrued to F
them under the decree. Here in this case also it is obvious that the original
landlord Prabhakar Govind Sinai Kuvelkar had expired only after the
eviction order passed by the Additional Rent Controller. This is apart from
the fact that the landlord had sought the possession not only for himself
but also for his family members. There is a clear reference in Section G
23(1)(a)(i) of the Act regarding occupation of the family members of the
landlord. In that view the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
respondent must be rejected.
12. In so far as the contention regarding Section 23A(3) is
H
334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent took us through the
Section and tried to suggest that the said Section was not applicable as
firstly it was not applicable to the retired State Government servants like
the appellant-landlord and secondly the amendment was not applicable
as it was a prospective amendment. The legislative history shows that
B Section 23A(3) was brought in by way of an amendment. Section 23A
was further amended and this amendment was passed on 23. 7.1987 and >-
was published vide Notification No.7/27/87-LA dated 2.12.1987 and the
same came into force as per Notification No. I 018187 /RD dated
27.2.1988. It was published in the Official Gazette (Extraordinary No.2)
C Series I No.47 dated 22.2.1988. After this amendment the Section stood
as under:
"23A(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act:
(3) a landlord, who is member of the armed forces of the Union
D or who is an employee of the Central or the State Government or
Railways or who was such member or employee as the case may
be and is duly retired (which term shall include premature
retirement) shall be entitled to recover possession of any premises
are bonajide required by him for occupation by himself or any
E member of his family (which term shall include a parent or other
relation ordinarily residing with him and dependent on him) and the
Controller shall pass an order for eviction on such ground of the
landlord at the hearing of the suit, produced a certificate signed
by the Head of the Services of his Commanding Officer or by the A..

F Head of his Department as the case may be to the effect that:
(i) He is presently a member of the armed forces of the Union
or employee of the Central or the State Government or
Railways or he was such member or employees as the case
G may be and is now retired ex-serviceman or employee as the
case may be.
(ii) He does not possess any other suitable residence in the local
area where he or the members of his family can reside;
(b) Not relevant".
H
,/ USHA P. KUVELKAR v. RAVINDRA SUBRAI DALVI 335
[V.S. SIRPURKAR, J.]
It was not seriously disputed before the Additional Rent Controller that A
the applicant was in service of the Government of Goa, Daman & Diu
and had retired on 31.5 .1983. In fact there appears to be no contrary
evidence led to the a~sertion that the landlord was a government servant
and he had retired on 31.5.1983. The further amendment made to Section
23A(3) added sub-clause (c) after clause 3(i)(b). The said clause was: B
"The provisions of this sub-section shall be applicable to all
applications including those pending proceedings before any
Controller, Tribunal, Court and all such proceedings shall be
disposed of in accordance with the provisions of this Section."
c
The further amendment also provided a summary procedure. For our
purposes the relevant clause is Clause (h) which is as under:
"No appeal or second appeal shall lie against an order for the
recovery of possession of any residential building made by the D
Controller in accordance with the procedure specified in this sub-
section.
Provided that the High Court may, for the purpose of satisfying
itself that an order made by the Controller under this sub-section
is according to law, call for the records of the case and pass such E
order in respect thereto as it thinks fit."

The language of sub-section 23A(3Xc) which we have quoted above leave
. _, no manner of doubt that the Section was clearly applicable to the pending
proceedings like the present one. It is obvious that the amendment F
application was filed by the landlord on 8.2.1989 wherein a specific
reference is made to the above mentioned legal position. Beyond baldly
denying the tenant has done nothing worth the name. We have seen the
judgment of the Additional Rent Controller who has considered Section
23A(3) extensively. There can be no doubt that the provision was G
--.{ applicable to the proceedings and as such the Additional Rent Controller
was right in accepting the case of the landlord to the effect that firstly he
was a government servant having retired on 31.5.1983, secondly he had
no house in Panaji where the concerned residential premises existed and
H
336 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 12 S.C.R.

A thirdly that he wanted the house for his own bonafide occupation. We,
therefore, reject the contention of the respondent that Section 23A(3) was
not applicable to the present proceedings. The judgment of the High Court
is woefully wanting on this aspect. No argument was raised by the counsel
for the respondent regarding the 1994 amendment.
B
13. In the result the appeal is allowed. The Judgment of the High
Court is set aside and that of the Additional Rent Controller and the
Administrative Tribunal are restored with costs.
N.J. Appeal allowed.
c

' .