JUDGMENT - Dr. E.S. DA SILVA, J. :---This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenges the judgment of the Administrative Tribunal dated 21-10-1991 in Eviction Appeal No. 22 of 1984 which has affirmed the judgment of the Additional Rent Controller, Panaji, dated 31-3-1984. In the said judgment passed in Case No. Rent/35/78, the Additional Rent Controller has allowed an eviction application filed by the respondent No. 1 (hereinafter called the respondent) and directed the petitioner to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the suit premises to the respondent within a period of 45 days. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he is the tenant in respect of premises belonging to the respondent which are situated at Rua de Ourem, Portais, Panaji, out of which three compartments of the building bearing Matriz No. 68 were leased to him by the late husband of the respondent Purxotoma alias Bhiku Nagwekar by deed dated 19th May, 1962. The lease was executed in the petitioners favour for establishing therein a printing press and for the office of the daily `Pradip which he was publishing as its owner and editor. It is further the case of the petitioner that after taking the premises on rental basis he had purchased a printing machine and other allied machinery as well as the required furniture and started running his printing press. He had also established in the suit premises the office of his Marathi daily from where the newspaper was being printed and published everyday. He had even installed a telephone in the suit premises which still continues therein. Initially the petitioner has taken electricity connection in the premises and subsequently he took additional power connection to run the printing machine. When the machine was purchased the same was being operated on diesel but subsequently the petitioner made it to work on electricity. It was also stated that this original machine purchased in 1962 still continued in the suit premises although it was not used due to certain difficulty. After some time the petitioner took a loan from the Government and acquired an electric printing machine which was bigger in size. This was an imported Russian made machine and since then he started using that machine to print his daily and only on occasions the old machine which has been converted to be operated on electricity was made use of. This was an imported Russian made machine and since then he started using that machine to print his daily and only on occasions the old machine which has been converted to be operated on electricity was made use of. However in the year 1971 the petitioner sold the Russian machine and continued using on regular basis the old converted diesel machine. On 12-10-78 the respondent filed eviction proceedings against the petitioner on the ground of non-occupancy of the premises. The petitioner filed his written statement wherein he has contended that the premises had been rented out to him for installing a printing press for the publication of his daily newspaper `Pradip and also for the office of his daily printing. He denied that he had discontinued his business of printing press and publication of the daily or kept the suit premises closed for the last five years. He also pleaded that his machinery lies and continues in the suit premises. 3. By judgment and order dated 31-3-1984 the Additional Rent Controller allowed the respondents application and ordered the petitioners eviction not only on the ground of non-user of the premises for a period of more than five years but also on the ground of damages caused to the premises. In appeal the Administrative Tribunal upheld the finding of the Addl. Rent Controller only in respect of non-user of the suit premises and affirmed the order of eviction by its impugned judgment dated 21st October, 1991. 4. Shri Kolwalkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the Tribunal while assessing the evidence has failed to consider that there were inherent misstatements in the respondents evidence before the Rent Controller and that his witnesses were unduly discarded on the ground of being friendly with the petitioner while such considerations were not taken into account with regard to the witnesses relied by the respondent. The learned Counsel has urged that the premises had been taken by the petitioner for installation of his printing press and also to run his office. He had actually installed the printing machine which is still there now and also a telephone which he is using since 1962. Thereupon right from 1962 he has continuously electricity and water connections in the premises at his cost. He had actually installed the printing machine which is still there now and also a telephone which he is using since 1962. Thereupon right from 1962 he has continuously electricity and water connections in the premises at his cost. Thus the purpose for which he had taken the premises on lease was carried out and the premises are still being used by him for the same purpose. Besides he is maintaining the office of his daily newspaper `Pradip in the premises and as a journalist he sits there everyday to carry on his routine work in connection with the publication of his newspaper. The learned Counsel contended that running of a printing press, fittings are required, being one the consideration of the economics of scale and the other the availability of customers. As far as the petitioners newspaper is concerned, it was urged that due to financial constraints the petitioner has reduced the size of the newspaper into a demi size and therefore the machine which was available with him could not be used to print a newspaper of the new size. With regard to the customers, the learned Counsel submitted in order to get the customers work done, the petitioner was required to have sufficient work to justify the use of the printing machinery on profitable basis. Since in the new facts and circumstances of the case he could not get such amount of work consequent upon the fact that the new size of newspaper could not be printed on that machine. The petitioner was not in a position to utilise the printing machine purchased by him at all. It was urged that this was the position in principle because otherwise occasionally the petitioner was using the machine when there was some amount of work to justify the running of the machine on profitable basis. It was also contended on behalf of the petitioner that because it was not possible to use the printing machine on rental basis as a matter of course, the petitioner started doing only the composition work in the premises i.e. he was composing the types to be printed and thereafter was getting the newspaper actually printed somewhere else. The petitioner was compelled to act in this manner in order to help him make his business to survive. The petitioner was compelled to act in this manner in order to help him make his business to survive. This was being done by the petitioner not only with regard to publication of his newspaper but also in respect of the printing work accepted by him from outsiders which he was also getting occasionally. The learned Counsel contended that this much has been stated by him before the Rent Controller who therefore should have considered this fact as material so as to hold that the petitioner was continuing to run his business of printing press in the suit premises. The grievance of the learned Counsel however is that inspite of this the evidence given by the petitioner the Rent Controller has unduly cast serious doubts on the petitioners word and went on over emphasising the fact that the petitioner has failed to lead evidence of those persons with whom according to the petitioner he was getting his printing work done namely the owners of Sanket Printing Press who appears to be his own brother and also the Manager of the Co-operative Society Printing Press wherein the petitioner was also purportedly printing his newspaper as well as of any other customer whose job he might have taken to them for printing. The learned Counsel has submitted in this regard that by examining these persons it would be a futile exercise in view of the approach taken by the Controller and the Tribunal as well by assessing the evidence and discarding the petitioners witnesses on the ground of being false and unreliable and this also because they were admittedly friendly with the petitioner. The learned Counsel took me through the evidence on record to start with the respondents son and power of attorney Shripad Nagvekar. The learned Counsel pointed out in his deposition Shripad has not said that the petitioner had ever removed from the premises the old printing machine brought by him in 1964 and he spoke only of his having removed from the premises types and furniture after the sale of the Russian machine which however according to the witness was brought back after the filing of the eviction application. The learned Counsel also complained that the respondent inspite of relying on the information given by one Guru Surlekar who had allegedly informed Shripad about the bringing back the types and furniture once removed from the premises did not even bother to examine or bring the said Guru before the Court to give evidence on this point. Admittedly the petitioners telephone continued to be installed in the premises and operated by the petitioner therein. The learned Counsel has made reference to the deposition of other witnesses who had deposed on behalf of the petitioner namely Shashikant Candolkar, Tukaram Naik, Shriram Narvenkar and Prakash Naik and pointed out some inconsistencies which could be found in their testimony so as to render them unworthy of credit. He however urged that certain admissions which had come from their statements namely from Prakash Naik would show that the petitioner was paying regularly the bills of electricity, water and telephone installed in the premises and this could not happen unless the petitioner was very much available in the premises to collect the bills thus indicating his eagerness to maintain the possession and actual occupation of the rented premises. The learned Counsel has also relied on the deposition of the petitioner himself as well as of his other witness namely Narcinva Sukhthankar which according to the learned Counsel had been unduly discarded by the Controller on the flimsy ground that he was friendly with the petitioner. The learned Counsel has vehemently taken objection of the patent discrimination done by the Rent Controller while dealing with the respondents witnesses who inspite of having been admitted being known or close to the respondent were thoroughly believed while the petitioners witnesses who had honestly acknowledged being friendly with him were discarded without any serious discussion or appreciation of the merits of their evidence. 5. It was further submitted that the respondent had thus failed to prove that the petitioner had physically or actually vacated the premises or kept it closed under lock and key or discontinued using the same for the purpose to which it had been leased. It was urged in this regard that the Court should appreciate that the premises had been let out to the petitioner to instal a printing press and to run his office so as to enable him to print and publish his daily newspaper. It was urged in this regard that the Court should appreciate that the premises had been let out to the petitioner to instal a printing press and to run his office so as to enable him to print and publish his daily newspaper. The admitted position which had emerged from the evidence was that the petitioner had actually installed his printing press and using the premises for the office of his newspaper `Pradip. It has been also brought in evidence that the petitioners printing machine purchased in 1962 which at all times remained in the premises because, according to the respondent what had been removed after the sale of the Russian machine were printing types and furniture only. Besides the petitioners telephone has continued being operated since 1962 till now in the premises without any occasion for its disconnection. The petitioners electricity and water connections also remained therein undisturbed. The petitioner had regularly paid all the charges of water, electricity and telephone connections. The payment of electricity charges has been proved by the respondent himself. It was however contended by the learned Counsel that the petitioner could not have paid the charges unless he was in possession of the premises and was using it for his own benefit. All this material has been brought on record through the petitioners personal evidence further supported by the testimony of his witnesses who had substantiated the fact of its actual occupation of the premises and stated that they had met the petitioner therein on several occasions and everytime found him doing therein the composition work in connection with the newspaper printing of which he was the editor and publisher. This by itself would be sufficient to indicate that the petitioner was working in the premises his printing press and using it to run his business. 6. Mr. Lotlikar, learned Counsel for the respondent has contended that the entire tenor of the learned petitioners counsels submissions would show that the main and only grievance of the petitioner is that the courts below had not properly appreciated and dealt with the evidence on record. According to the learned Counsel in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution this Court could not be invited to appreciate or re-appraise the evidence when there were concurrent findings given by both the courts below in the assessment of the same evidence. According to the learned Counsel in a petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the constitution this Court could not be invited to appreciate or re-appraise the evidence when there were concurrent findings given by both the courts below in the assessment of the same evidence. The learned Counsel submitted that the petitioner did not complain that any particular piece of evidence was not considered or that inadmissible evidence had been accepted by the controller and for that matter by the Tribunal as well. On this ground alone the petition was bound to be rejected. It was also contended that apart from this objection there was also nothing wrong in the appreciation of evidence made by the Controller and upheld by the Tribunal. The learned Counsel submitted in this regard that even if this Court was to re-assess this evidence it would certainly come to the same conclusion. It was submitted that what was required is not to look into the evidence of one or two witnesses but instead to the overall testimony of the witnesses relied by the parties and the documentary evidence which has been made the basis of the finding rendered by the courts below. 7. There appears to be considerable merit in these submissions of the learned Counsel. Mr. Lotlikar has taken me also through the evidence available on record and I am satisfied that the cumulative effect of the same leads to the only unescapable conclusion that the petitioner has actually stopped using the suit premises for the purpose for which it was leased by the respondents late husband. In this regard the admission made by the petitioner himself viewed along with the documentary evidence produced by the respondent makes in my judgment substantial proof of a case of non-occupation of non-user of the premises by the petitioner for the purpose of running therein his printing press and in respect of the publication of his daily newspaper `Pradip. In this regard it may be said that to arrive at this finding it is not even required to go deep into the testimony of the witnesses relied by the parties at all. However the evidence given by these witnesses with all the limitations and contingencies would help only to reinforce the conclusions which logically and inevitably flows from both documentary on record and oral evidence given by the petitioner himself. However the evidence given by these witnesses with all the limitations and contingencies would help only to reinforce the conclusions which logically and inevitably flows from both documentary on record and oral evidence given by the petitioner himself. In this connection it is pertinent to note that the petitioner has admitted in clear terms that he had stopped printing the newspaper in the premises right from 1972 and also that he has discontinued doing any other type or kind of printing work in the premises since then. He had even that the reason for stopping printing work at the suit premises was because he could get it done outside economically. Thus he was doing the printing work at Sanket Printers at Ponda and also at times at the Co-operative printing press and that the only thing he was doing in the premises was the preparation of the job. Thereafter he was taking it to Ponda to get the work printed. The petitioner has also admitted that he was maintaining a telephone connection belonging to him at the house of his witness Sunkthankar although another telephone was installed in the suit premises. This again appears to suggest that the telephone at Sunkthankars place would mean that the petitioner was not easily or readily available in the suit premises and therefore had to keep another telephone of his in some other place. There is also a further admission on the petitioners part that the place of correspondence shown in his newspaper namely in the weekly issue of `Pradip is at Ponda and the place of publication of the newspaper is shown as Panditwada, Ponda. Similarly the address of the publisher, printer and editor of the newspaper is given as Panditwada, Ponda. Besides he has also admitted that in a Civil Suit pending in the Court of the C.J.S.D., Panaji, being Civil Suit No. 376/1978 in an application made in the Court for expeditious hearing he had stated that he could not carry out any work in the suit premises in view of the repairs to the machinery having been kept helter skelter. He admitted that none of the applications filed in the said suit nor in any plaint or application nor even in the written statement before this Court he had averred at any time that he was doing composition work in the suit premises. 8. He admitted that none of the applications filed in the said suit nor in any plaint or application nor even in the written statement before this Court he had averred at any time that he was doing composition work in the suit premises. 8. In the reply or written statement filed by the petitioner before the Rent Controller although denying that he has discontinued his business of printing press and publication of the daily newspaper `Pradip and the fact of his having kept the premises closed for five years as contended by the respondent, the petitioner stated only that his machinery continued to lie in the suit premises and nowhere has pleaded that he was doing the work of composition of the types of printing in the premises. 9. Mr. Lotlikar appears therefore to be justified in saying that the case sought to be made by the petitioner now only during evidence while giving his deposition before the Controller is an afterthought. He has not so much even pleaded the fact of composition till the petitioners son filed a suit in Court. There is also more. At a certain stage of his cross-examination before the controller one can find one more admission on his part which seems to be relevant and this is regarding the fact that the doors and windows of the premises are thickly pasted with advertisements and other papers. Needless to say that such admission is clearly indicative of the fact that the premises could not have been used at all by the petitioner and thus the question of even composition work being done therein does not seem to arise. The learned Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that in his deposition before the Controller the petitioner has also admitted that the reason given by him in the Civil Court to justify the digging up of the floor of the premises was that of uneveness of the flooring which was occasionally causing disturbance in the printing work carried on by the petitioner. This means and the learned petitioners counsel is justified in so emphasising that the stand taken by the petitioner before the Civil Court was that he was actually doing the work of printing in the premises at the relevant time. This means and the learned petitioners counsel is justified in so emphasising that the stand taken by the petitioner before the Civil Court was that he was actually doing the work of printing in the premises at the relevant time. Being so, the different statement given subsequently before the Rent Controller to the effect that due to technical difficulties the work of printing was becoming uneconomical and not profitable and therefore the printing of the newspaper as well as of the other work entrusted to him by the customers had been discontinued by him right from 1972 and only the composition work was being done therein amounts to a complete some result from the original stand adopted by the petitioner in this whole affair. 10. This being the position it seems that the theory of composition brought into picture by the petitioner for the first time only in course of his deposition before the Rent Controller, in the absence of any evidence by way of examination by the petitioner of at least some witnesses who could state that any printing work had been entrusted by them to him in respect of his printing press, failing which no work of composition could have been done by the petitioner in the suit premises, does not seem to arise at all. Mr. Lotlikar in this regard has made quite a pertinent remark with regard to what the petitioner has sought to say that while the composition of the types was being done in the suit premises the printing was being taken to Ponda and each time only four pages could be prepared or composed in Panaji so as to be sent to Ponda for the purpose of printing. It was submitted by the learned Counsel that there being some cases of the weekly `pradip consisting of about 70 pages it would be difficult to believe that such type of exercise should have been indulged by the petitioner in composing each time four pages to be sent to Ponda for printing and thereafter bringing it back, subsequent four pages and so on. According to learned Counsel this would be impracticable and uneconomical and in the circumstances what would be more natural that the composition also should have been done at Ponda itself instead of being done in Panaji as contended by the petitioner. Further it was urged by Mr. According to learned Counsel this would be impracticable and uneconomical and in the circumstances what would be more natural that the composition also should have been done at Ponda itself instead of being done in Panaji as contended by the petitioner. Further it was urged by Mr. Lotlikar that the composition work is the most difficult job in the printing process and which required bright light because it deals with small types which has to be carefully arranged and set. In this regard the evidence on record shows that for the period of about five years during which the petitioner alleges that he was carrying on in the premises the work of composition there has been no consumption of a single unit of electricity in the premises. This by itself appears to disprove the case sought to be made by the petitioner to justify the use and occupation of the suit premises for the purpose to which the same was leased by him. On the other hand, it is seen from the petitioners evidence that the printing of his newspaper used to be done in the printing press of his brother Sanket and also sometimes in the Coperative Society Printing Press at Ponda. Inspite of that neither his brother Sanket nor even the Manager of the Co-operative Society Printing Press have come to Court to give evidence in this regard. 11. Mr. Kolwalkars submission that the examination of the petitioners brother Sanket would be useless in the context of the approach allegedly taken by the Controller in disbelieving of the petitioners witnesses on the ground that they were close or interested in deposing on his behalf does not explain however that the Manager of the Co-operative Society Printing Press might not have been available by the petitioner to substantiate his case that the printing of his newspaper was being done at Ponda after the composition work being prepared by him in the suit premises. 12. It thus follows that even assuming the old printing machine and some printing types or even the petitioners telephone are still found in the suit premises it is obvious that the mere keeping of personal objects belonging to the petitioner in the premises cannot by itself justify the presumption that the petitioner was in legal occupation of the premises. 12. It thus follows that even assuming the old printing machine and some printing types or even the petitioners telephone are still found in the suit premises it is obvious that the mere keeping of personal objects belonging to the petitioner in the premises cannot by itself justify the presumption that the petitioner was in legal occupation of the premises. In the case of (Vora Rahimbhai Haji Hasanbhai Popat v. Vora Sunderlal Manilal and another)1, A.I.R. 1986 S.C. 174 the Court was dealing with a case under the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, namely with its section 13(1) (k) which is substantially akin to section 22(2) (f) of the Goa Act observed that all that section 13(1) (k) contemplates is that the premises had not been used for the purpose for which they were let out for a continuous period of six months immediately preceding the date of suit without reasonable cause. It does not say that mere non-user of the premises will make him liable for eviction. The scheme of the Act as it appears from the preamble is to consolidate the law relating to the control of rents and repairs of certain premises, of rates of hotels and lodging houses and of evictions. The control has to be brought in because of the scarcity of accommodation in the cities. If this was the preamble of the Act it cannot be said that a tenant may take a premises on rent and keep it locked for years together without using it in the absence of any reasonable cause. The intendment of the legislature could be carried out only when the premises is used and not kept vacant for years together. Again in (M/s. Babu Ram Gopal and others v. Mathra Dass)2, A.I.R. 1990 S.C. 879, which was a case of eviction under the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 namely its section 13(2) (v) similar to our section 22(2) (f) the Supreme Court held that when a business stopped continuously for four months without reasonable cause the tenant in possession of the building only in legal sense was liable to be evicted. The Court observed that the reason of including the Cl. The Court observed that the reason of including the Cl. (v) in section 13(2) is to ensure that buildings, which are scarce in number specially in the towns, necessitating rent control legislation, do not remain unused at the instance of tenants who do not actually need them. A tenant who is in possession of a building in the legal sense only cannot be said to be in occupation thereof for the purpose of section 13(2) (v). These two decisions make it abundantly clear that in the matter of occupation of leased premises by the tenant what is relevant is the question of actual user of the premises by the tenant for which it was let out and this only characterises occupation within the meaning of the Act. In a connected case of (R.K. Bhatnagar v. Smt. Sushila Bhargava and another)3, A.I.R. 1987 Delhi, 363, under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 namely section 14(1) (d) wherein it was alleged that the tenant was not residing in the premises the question of the meaning of the word `occupation was examined. In the context of the facts that there was no consumption of electricity by the tenant over a long period the Court held that the word `occupation connotes occupation in the sense of actual user and even if it was true that non-consumption of electricity by a tenant over a long period might not in itself be sufficient to warrant an inference of non-consumption of electricity by a tenant over a long period might not in itself be sufficient to warrant an inference of non-residence by the tenant however this was certainly an important piece of corroborative evidence which was material to tilt the balance in favour of the landlord when the entire evidence was being evaluated on the touch stone of preponderance of probabilities. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that the courts below have correctly approached to the matter and therefore whatever findings were rendered in this respect cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence at all. 13. On the facts and circumstances of the case I am satisfied that the courts below have correctly approached to the matter and therefore whatever findings were rendered in this respect cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence at all. But even if this Court was inclined to hold that the view taken by either the Rent Controller or the Tribunal was one of the possible views, a writ Court cannot certainly step in to substitute this view by a different view only because in its opinion this view is better than the one adopted by the courts below. 14. In the result, I find no merit in this petition which is therefore bound to be rejected. The judgment and order of the Tribunal which has affirmed the order of the Rent Controller is upheld. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Rule is accordingly discharged with however no order as to costs. *****