JUDGMENT : C.V. Bhadang, J. By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the judgment and order dated 27.02.2012, passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal at Goa in Eviction Appeal No. 26/2009. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal while allowing the appeal filed by the respondents, has directed eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises. 2. The brief facts are that the respondents are the co-owners of a building known as 'Anandi', situated at Feira, Baixa at Mapusa. Shop No. 2, on the ground floor of the said building, was given on rent to now deceased Shekhar Verlekar, for carrying on the business of selling television sets, on a monthly rent of Rs.312/-. According to the respondents, the tenant Shekhar Verlekar defaulted in the matter of payment of rent, from October, 1993 and also sublet the said shop to M/s Kavita Traders, without the consent or permission of the respondents. It was also contended that the tenant failed to occupy the said premises for a continuous period of four years. The respondents, therefore, filed an application before the learned Rent Controller, against now deceased Shekhar Verlekar, seeking his eviction on the ground of arrears of rent, sub-letting and failing to occupy the premises for a continuous period of four months i.e. under Sections 22(2)(a), (b) and (f) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (Act, for short). 3. The tenant resisted the application, claiming that the monthly rent of the premises was Rs.250/- and not Rs.312/- as claimed. It was contended that the rent was sent by money order, which was refused by the landlord. It was denied that the shop was sub-let. It was contended that M/s Kavita Traders was the name of the business, Kavita being the name of his wife and thus, there was no sub-letting. It was also denied that the tenant had failed to occupy the premises for a period of more than four months as claimed. 4. The original tenant, Shekhar died during the pendency of the application on 05.05.2002 and the present petitioners are brought on record as legal representatives. 5. The parties led evidence, in which, respondent no. 3, Suresh Kamat was examined as AW-1 along with one Manguesh Dicholkar, AW-2. The petitioner no. 2, Kavita Verlekar, examined herself as RW-1. 6. The parties also produced documents. 7. 5. The parties led evidence, in which, respondent no. 3, Suresh Kamat was examined as AW-1 along with one Manguesh Dicholkar, AW-2. The petitioner no. 2, Kavita Verlekar, examined herself as RW-1. 6. The parties also produced documents. 7. The learned Rent Controller by a judgment and order dated 26.06.2009, dismissed the application holding that the respondents had refused to accept the rent when sent by money order. The learned Rent Controller took note of the fact that the respondents had sent notice to the Electricity Department for disconnection of the electric supply to the suit premises and thus, the respondents were bent upon evicting the petitioners. Insofar as sub-letting is concerned, it was found that there was no evidence led by the respondents to establish sub-letting, particularly when M/s Kavita Traders is a name, in which, the petitioners were carrying on business, Kavita being the wife of the original tenant. Significantly, the learned Rent Controller did not advert to the ground of failure of the tenant to occupy the premises for four months under Section 22(2)(f) of the Act. 8. Feeling aggrieved, the respondents challenged the order before the learned Administrative Tribunal. The learned Administrative Tribunal, while reversing the order has directed eviction of the petitioners. Hence this petition. 9. I have heard Shri Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and Shri Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the respondents. 10. Shri Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the agreed rent was Rs.250/- per month and thus, the petitioners cannot be held responsible for arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.312/- per month, particularly when, admittedly, the possession of the go down premises (which were also allegedly the part of the tenanted premises) has already been surrendered. It is submitted that the learned Rent Controller had rightly come to the conclusion that the rent cannot exceed Rs.250/- per month. It is submitted that insofar as the ground of sub-letting is concerned, except an admission by Kavita, there is no other admissible evidence of creation of sub-tenancy and parting of possession and that too, on acceptance of rent. It is submitted that the respondents have not established that there was actual parting of possession, which is sine-qua non for subletting, which is lacking in this case. It is submitted that M/s Kavita Traders is the proprietary concern of the original tenant. It is submitted that the respondents have not established that there was actual parting of possession, which is sine-qua non for subletting, which is lacking in this case. It is submitted that M/s Kavita Traders is the proprietary concern of the original tenant. Section 22(2)(a) and 22(3) of the Act do not contemplate, automatic eviction. It is submitted that the notice sent by the respondents was illegal, in as much as, arrears of rent was claimed at the rate of Rs.312/- per month as against the agreed rent of Rs.250/- per month. It is submitted that notice was sent on 01.12.1995 and the money order was sent on 30.01.1996. It was denied that the shop premises were kept locked and were not used, as claimed. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal was in error in interfering with the order of the learned Rent Controller. 11. Shri Mulgaonkar, the learned Counsel for the respondents has submitted that the scope of interference under supervisory jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited. It is submitted that the learned Administrative Tribunal, being the fact finding Court, has taken a plausible view of the matter, which is not amenable to interference. It is submitted that the learned Rent Controller had not framed any point and there was no marshaling of any evidence. It is submitted that it was almost an admitted position that the tenant was in arrears of rent and the rent was not paid as required under Sections 22(2)(a) and 22(3) of the Act. The learned Counsel has submitted that the words "legally recoverable", as used in Section 22(2)(a) of the Act has been interpreted by the Hon'be Supreme Court in the case of Kamala Bakshi Vs. Khairati Lal, (2000) 3 SCC 681 , as a claim not barred by limitation. It is submitted that at no point of time, a dispute was raised as to the quantum of rent and the tenant had not claimed determination of the quantum of rent under Section 32 of the Act. It is submitted that the petitioners have failed to deposit/pay rent at the rate of Rs.312/- per month and therefore, the admission by the petitioner, Kavita has rightly not been acted upon. It is submitted that the petitioners have failed to deposit/pay rent at the rate of Rs.312/- per month and therefore, the admission by the petitioner, Kavita has rightly not been acted upon. It is submitted that AW-1 was neither confronted with the money order coupons nor RW-1 has produced the money order coupons to indicate that the amount was sent by money order and that it was refused. It is submitted that the benefit of Section 22(4) of the Act cannot be extended in this case. 12. Insofar as the ground of sub-letting is concerned, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that RW-1 Kavita has admitted about the fact of sub-letting. Insofar as the ground of non-occupation is concerned, it is pointed out that the case set up by the petitioners was of total denial and no case of reasonable cause has been set up or established within the meaning of Section 22(4) of the Act. It is submitted that there are two letters and three electricity bills, having 25 reports showing that the door of the shop was closed. It is submitted that there is no contrary evidence by the petitioners, in order to show that they were using the suit premises for the period during which the respondents claim that the shop was locked. The learned Counsel pointed out that even assuming that now the business is run, cannot take away the ground, which has become available to the respondents. 13. Shri Lotlikar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, in rejoinder, although, did not dispute that there was no application filed under Section 22(4) of the Act, it is submitted that substantial compliance is sufficient and the request can be made at any stage of the proceedings. 14. I have carefully considered the rival circumstances and the submissions made. 15. First I would deal with the ground of arrears of rent, under section 22(2) (a) of the Act. Under the said section, a tenant who is in arrears of rent, for a total period of three months and has failed to pay or tender such arrears, which are legally recoverable from him, within thirty days of the receipt of or of the refusal of a registered notice served on him, by the landlord for such arrears, is liable to be evicted. According to the respondents, the tenant Shekhar Verlekar did not deposit the arrears of rent amounting to Rs.14,976/- for the period from October 1993 to September 1997 and the said arrears were deposited only on 5/9/1997. The tenant also did not deposit the rent for the period from January 2002 to June 2002. It is matter of record that after the death of the original tenant, his wife Kavita filed an application to allow her to deposit the arrears of rent from January 2002 to June 2002 as well as the subsequent rent. However, the said rent was deposited only on 11/3/2004 i.e. about two years after the order of the Rent Controller directing the deposit of the said rent. The contention on behalf of the petitioner about the quantum of rent being discrepant, to the one agreed, to my mind cannot be accepted. There is a notice dated 27/11/1995 sent to the tenant Shekhar which has been received on 1/12/1995. Kavita in her evidence has admitted that the suit shop no.2 was given on lease to her late husband on a monthly rent of 312/-. Thus she has clearly admitted the quantum of rent. Admittedly there was no application filed by the tenant under section 32(3) of th Act for determination of the quantum of rent. Thus the contention raised on the basis of the quantum of the monthly rent being discrepant cannot be accepted. Kavita has also admitted that her late husband did not pay the rent of the suit shop premises from October 1993 and she has admitted the signature of her husband on the postal acknowledgment. She has specifically admitted that her late husband did not pay the rent from October 1993 to October 1995 amounting to Rs.7200/- within thirty days from the receipt of the notice at (Exhibit AW.1). 16. Sub section 2(a) of section 22 of the Act, contemplates an opportunity to the tenant to get out of the ground of arrears of rent by payment or tender of the arrears of rent, as are legally recoverable from him, within thirty days from the receipt of a registered notice which is admittedly not done in this case. 16. Sub section 2(a) of section 22 of the Act, contemplates an opportunity to the tenant to get out of the ground of arrears of rent by payment or tender of the arrears of rent, as are legally recoverable from him, within thirty days from the receipt of a registered notice which is admittedly not done in this case. Sub section 3 of section 22 contemplates yet another opportunity to the tenant to prevent his eviction on the ground of arrears of rent by payment or tender of the arrears within thirty days of the service of summons, which is also not availed of in this case. 17. Mr. Mulgaonkar, the learned counsel for the respondent in my considered view is right in contending that the fact that there were arrears of rent, is almost an admitted fact in this case going by the evidence on record and particularly, the clear admission in her cross examination by Kavita. 18. Sub section 4 of Section 22 is yet another provision of which the benefit can be taken by the tenant where the eviction is sought on the ground of arrears of rent. A tenant can file an application under sub section 4 of section 22 and demonstrate a reasonable cause for his failure to tender or deposit the rent. If the Rent Controller is satisfied that the tenant's defaults to pay, tender or deposit the rent, was not without reasonable cause, he may notwithstanding anything contained in sub section 3 or in section 32, can give the tenant reasonable time to pay the rent to the landlord up to the date of such payment, or tender. In the present case not only the tenant has not availed of the said provision by filing an application, it is not even the case made out that the failure or the default in the matter of payment of rent was on account of any reasonable or sufficient cause. For this reasons, I do not find that any exception can be taken to the order of eviction in so far as the ground of arrears of rent under section 22(2) (a) of the Act is concerned. 19. This takes me to the ground of non occupation under section 22(2)(f) of the Act. For this reasons, I do not find that any exception can be taken to the order of eviction in so far as the ground of arrears of rent under section 22(2) (a) of the Act is concerned. 19. This takes me to the ground of non occupation under section 22(2)(f) of the Act. The said section contemplates eviction of a tenant when it is established that the tenant has ceased to occupy the building for a continuous period of four months, without reasonable cause. According to the respondent, the suit premises were locked during the period from October 2001 to August 2002 and electricity bills for the said period are produced with an endorsement "DL" (which means door locked). The Tribunal relying upon the said evidence has held that the premises were locked during the period from October 2001 till August 2002. There is also a letter dated 21/6/2002 written by the Assistant Engineer of the Electricity Department which shows that the suit shop premises were kept closed for more that four months. The Tribunal placing reliance on the oral and documentary evidence has held that the tenant had ceased to occupy the suit premises for more than four months, without reasonable cause. Apart from the fact that the electricity bills for the relevant period have come with an endorsement as "DL", and in the face of such the oral evidence, the onus shifted on the tenant/s to show that indeed the suit shop premises were being used for business purpose. It is evident that any such business would indeed require a continuous electricity supply. The petitioners/tenants could have produced any other evidence to show that indeed the business was being conducted in the suit shop premises during the said period, which is lacking in this case. 20. In my considered view, once it is found that the finding recorded by the Administrative Tribunal is based on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record and that the view taken and the finding recorded is a plausible view and is not perverse, this Court would not be justified in interfering with the same, in the exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Thus, in my considered view the ground for eviction under section 22 (2) (f) of the Act also stands established. 21. This takes me to the ground of subletting. Thus, in my considered view the ground for eviction under section 22 (2) (f) of the Act also stands established. 21. This takes me to the ground of subletting. I have carefully considered and gone through the evidence on record and except an admission by Kavita, there is no other evidence to establish subletting. It is now well settled that subletting contemplates actual parting of possession by the tenant in favour of a third party, for a consideration. The element of parting of physical or actual possession is lacking in this case. On the contrary, it appears that Kavita Traders was only a name under which the tenant was conducting his business, Kavita being the name of his wife. There is nothing on record that M/s. Kavita Traders is an independent entity or a proprietorship concern of some individual other than the original tenant or the petitioners. In the absence of the same, I am of the view that the finding as to subletting recorded by the Administrative Tribunal is not based on any acceptable evidence and to that extent the part of the order directing eviction on the ground of subletting deserves to be set aside. In the result the following order is passed; ORDER (i) The petition is partly allowed. (ii) The impugned order directing eviction of the petitioners on the ground of subletting is hereby set aside. (iii) The part of the order directing eviction of the petitioners from the suit shop premises on the ground of arrears of rent under section 22(2) (a) of the Act is hereby confirmed. (iv) The petitioners are granted three months time to vacate the suit shop premises. (v) Rule is partly made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.