JUDGMENT - A.D. MANE, J.:---This writ petition arises from eviction proceeding instituted by the landlords-respondent Nos. 1 to 4 herein, against the tenants-petitioners, under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, (for short, 'the Act'). 2. One of the grounds in support of the eviction of the tenants from the suit premises as alleged by the respondents is that the petitioners are in arrears of monthly rent of Rs. 15/- per month over three months. The petitioners denied specifically the said ground and have stated that in the year 1970 the respondents came from Bombay and on their request, half of the house occupied by the petitioners was surrendered to them for their occupation and the rent was accordingly reduced from Rs. 15/- per month to Rs. 7.50 ps. per month. 3. Pending the ejectment proceeding the respondents filed an application on January 22, 1979 before the Rent Controller, inter alia stating that the petitioners have failed to deposit the arrears of rent due within the stipulated time as laid down by law or that they have not shown any ground sufficient enough for their failure and, therefore, the petitioners be directed to hand over vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondents. The petitioners replied the application denying that the monthly rent was Rs. 15/- and asserted that on account of change of circumstance, as herein above stated, the monthly rent was reduced to Rs. 7.50/- per month. The petitioners have also denied that there is a default on their part for payment of dues. According to the petitioners the amount of rent was sent by money orders at the rate of Rs. 7.50/- per month. Therefore, the petitioners submit that there is sufficient cause for them in not paying or depositing the rent at the rate of Rs. 15/- per month. 4. It may be stated that the Rent Controller, without making any enquiry in a dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited by the petitioners, by his order dated November 11, 1988 directed the petitioners to put the respondents in vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. 15/- per month. 4. It may be stated that the Rent Controller, without making any enquiry in a dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited by the petitioners, by his order dated November 11, 1988 directed the petitioners to put the respondents in vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises. The Rent Controller is of the opinion that it is duty of the tenant to pay the rent atleast to the extent that has been accepted by him and the question as to whether the rent was reduced from Rs. 15/- to Rs. 7.50/- per month can be decided on evidence at later stage. It may also be stated that during pendency of the said application the petitioners have also deposited the amount of arrears of rent in December 1979, without prejudice to their rights and contentions but, that dispute, in the opinion of the Rent Controller, will not help the petitioners. 5. The order of the Rent Controller was then questioned by the petitioners in the Eviction Appeal No. 5 of 1982 before the Administrative Tribunal, as an appellate authority. The Administrative Tribunal also took the similar view that nothing prevented the tenant to deposit the rent at the rate of Rs. 7.50 per month and since non deposit of such rent, the petitioners can be said to have made a deliberate or wilful default. The appeal was accordingly dismissed. 6. In this writ petition, the petitioners, therefore, challenge the legality or validity of said orders, directing virtually the summary eviction of the tenant, during pendency of proceeding for eviction. 7. Shri Lotlikar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners has raised several contentions. One of the contentions raised is that the impugned order suffers from improper exercise of power under sub-section (4) of section 32 of the Act. I think, the petition can be disposed of on that point alone. 8. There is no dispute that on the facts as they stand, there is a dispute between the parties as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited by the tenant during pendency of proceeding for eviction. In other words there is a sharp controversy between the parties as to whether the monthly rent is Rs. 15/- or Rs. 7.50/- per month. The petitioners have satisfactorily shown that they have been paying Rs. In other words there is a sharp controversy between the parties as to whether the monthly rent is Rs. 15/- or Rs. 7.50/- per month. The petitioners have satisfactorily shown that they have been paying Rs. 7.50/- per month right from 1970 till the date of application for eviction. The amount of rent was sent by them by money orders and between 1970 to 1974, the money orders were also accepted by the respondents. The respondents have, however, asserted that monthly rent is Rs. 15/- per month. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the dispute between the parties is a dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited by the petitioners during pendency of proceeding for eviction. 9. Now, section 32 of the Act deals with the question of payment or deposit of rent during pendency of proceeding for eviction. Section 32 of the Act may be reproduced as under : "32. Payment or deposit of rent during pendency of proceedings for eviction.-- (1) No tenant against whom a proceeding for eviction has been instituted by a landlord under this Act shall be entitled to contest the proceeding 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. (2) The deposit of rent under sub-section (1) shall be made within such time and in such manner as may be prescribed. (3) Where there is any dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited under sub-section (1), the Controller or the appellate or revisional authority, as the case may be, shall, on application made either by the tenant or by the landlord, and after making such inquiry as he deems necessary, determine summarily the rent to be so paid or deposited. (4) If any tenant fails to pay or to deposit the rent as aforesaid, the Controller or the appellate or revisional authority, as the case may be, 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. (5) ......................................" 10. At the outset, it can be said that the provisions of section 32 of the Act, as herein above stated, do not warrant a view that in the event of the failure of the tenant to deposit the rent under sub-section (4) of section 32, the Rent Controller is bound to pass an order for recovery of possession for it yet remains for the landlord to prove his case which has been based on the ground of eviction as provided under section 22(2)(a) of the Act. On plain reading of sub-section (3) of section 32 of the Act, it is clear that where there is a dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited by the tenant during pendency of proceeding for eviction an enquiry will have to be proceeded with notwithstanding the fact that sub-section (1) provides for striking out the defence of the tenant. It, therefore, necessarily follows that the provision contained in sub-section (3) of section 32 of the Act enjoins a duty on the Controller to determine summarily the rent to be paid or deposited by the tenant in the first instance, when there is a dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited by him during pendency of proceeding. No case for punitive exercise of discretion would arise under sub-section (4) of section 32 of the Act, unless the Rent Controller determines the rent to be paid or deposited by the tenant during pendency of the proceeding under sub-section (3) thereof. Moreover, it is evident from the language of sub-section (3) that the legislature has given a statutory protection to the tenant by affording him an opportunity to pay the arrears of rent only after the Controller directs to be so paid during pendency of proceeding. 11. Shri Kolwalkar, the learned Counsel for the respondents urged that the view taken by the authorities below is perfectly justified inasmuch as the petitioners could have deposited in the Court the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 11. Shri Kolwalkar, the learned Counsel for the respondents urged that the view taken by the authorities below is perfectly justified inasmuch as the petitioners could have deposited in the Court the arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 7.50/- atleast and on their failure to do so, the provision of sub-section (4) was correctly applied. The learned Counsel has further urged that sub-section (3) of section 32 of the Act, would have no application in the facts of the present case inasmuch as the petitioners have not made any application to the Controller to determine summarily the rent to be paid or deposited by him in view of the dispute in the case. According to the learned Counsel, the petitioners cannot complain against the order passed under sub-section (4) of section 32 of the Act in absence of such an application having been made by them to the Rent Controller for determining summarily the rent to be paid or deposited by them in the Court. Therefore, it has been submitted that this is not a fit case to interfere with the concurrent orders passed by the authorities below. 12. Indeed, there is hardly any merit in any of the submissions of the learned Counsel for the respondents. As said above, where there is a dispute as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited under sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act, statutory duty is casts on the Controller under sub-section (3) to proceed with an enquiry and determine the rent to be paid or deposited by the tenant during pendency of the proceeding. It necessarily transpires from the language of sub-section (3) that where there is a dispute between the parties as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited under sub-section (1) of section 32, the Controller can act on application made either by the tenant or by the landlord under section 32 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the petitioners rightly pointed out that there is no provision in the Act which enjoins the tenant to deposit the amount of rent, which according to him, is the agreed rent, when the same is disputed by the landlord. The learned Counsel for the petitioners rightly pointed out that there is no provision in the Act which enjoins the tenant to deposit the amount of rent, which according to him, is the agreed rent, when the same is disputed by the landlord. Moreover, existence of a bona fide dispute between the parties as to the amount of rent to be paid or deposited under sub-section (1) of section 32 of the Act would also be a sufficient cause within the expression 'sufficient cause' as used in sub-section (4) of section 32 of the Act for the tenant to remain in arrears of rent. In that event also, the Controller would have no jurisdiction to pass the impugned order merely because the tenant has failed to pay or deposit the amount as demanded by the landlord. The Controller may get jurisdiction to direct the stoppage of further proceeding and to make a consequential order as contemplated under sub-section (4) of section 32 of the Act only when the tenant fails to pay or deposit, within a reasonable time, the amount so determined under sub-section (3) of section 32 of the Act, and that too, without any sufficient cause. 13. There is no dispute that neither the Controller nor the Appellate Court considered the right of the tenant which has been sufficiently safeguarded by provision of sub-section (3) of section 32 of the Act while exercising the punitive discretion. In my opinion, the conditions to exercise the power under the enabling provisions of sub-section (4) of section 32 of the Act have not been complied with and, therefore, the Controller as well as the Administrative Tribunal clearly fell into an error of law in holding that right to obtain an order for recovery of possession is accrued to the landlord. 14. It may, however, be stated that Shri Lotlikar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have been depositing the amount of Rs. 15/- per month and will deposit the same till termination of the proceeding for ejectment. It is, therefore, not necessary at this stage, to determine summarily the amount to be paid or deposited by the tenant in the present case. 15. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the application of the landlord for eviction according to law. It is, therefore, not necessary at this stage, to determine summarily the amount to be paid or deposited by the tenant in the present case. 15. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The Rent Controller is directed to dispose of the application of the landlord for eviction according to law. Rule is, accordingly, made absolute with no order as to costs. Rule made absolute. *****