LAVANDEA.P., J.: -These two petitions are disposed of by common judgment since they arise out of the proceedings taken against the original respondent - Sunita Palyenkar under the Goa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1988 (hereinafter, referred to as "the Act") Writ Petition No. 187/1999 has been preferred by the petitioner against the judgment and Order dated 30-3-1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Mapusa in Civil Appeal No.7/98 filed by the original respondent No. 1 herein. Writ Petition No. 188/1999 has been preferred against the-judgment and Order dated 30-3-1988 in Civil Appeal No.8 /98 preferred by the original respondent No. 1 herein, by which the appeal filed by the original respondent No. 1 was allowed by the Additional District Judge, Mapusa.

2. Briefly, the facts which are relevant for disposal of the writ petitions are as under:

The deceased respondent No. 1 was permitted to occupy Shop No. 4 in Tourist Hostel, Panaji (hereinafter, referred to as "the said premises"). The original respondent No.1 was granted the said premises on licence upon payment of monthly consideration of Rs. 168.50 and subject to the terms and conditions mentioned in the Agreement dated 6-4-1988. By the said agreement, original respondent No.1 was permitted to occupy the said premises for a period of 3 years beginning from 20-2-1987 to 19-2-1990. On 5-91990, the petitioner addressed a notice to original respondent No. 1 terminating the agreement with effect from mid- night of 1910-1990 and called upon the respondent No.1 to vacate the said premises. Since respondent No. 1 did not vacate the said premises, the petitioner filed an application for eviction before respondent No. 2 from the said premises and also claimed damages. The proceedings were contested by respondent No.1. Respondent No.1, inter alia, contended that she was occupying the said premises as tenant for about 26 years. By order dated 25th June, 1992, respondent No.2 ordered eviction of respondent No.1 and also granted damages. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred to the District Court, Panaji and the said 6.ppeal was allowed and the matter was remanded to respondent No.2. On remand, respondent No.2 passed Order dated 13-9-1994, ordering eviction of the respondent No.1 and also directing payment of damages. Against the said order, respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the District Court, Panaji which was allowed by judgment and Order dated 21-7-1997 and the District Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration to respondent No.2. The judgment and Order passed by the District Court was challenged by the petitioner by filing Writ Petition No. 306/ 1997 before this Court. By judgment and Order dated 3-2-1998, this Court partly allowed the petition and remanded the matter to respondent No.2 and restricted the remand only to the point whether the permission granted to respondent No.1 was validly terminated or not. Upon remand, respondent No.2 decided the matter in favour of the petitioner and directed respondent No.1 to be evicted and also ordered to pay damages at the rate of Rs. 1,000 / - per month for a period of three years from 20-1-1990 and thereafter, damages at the rate of Rs. 1150/- per month for a period upto 19-10-1996 and further damages at the rate of Rs. 1322/- from 20-10-1996 till eviction. Against the said order, respondent No. 2 chose to prefer two separate appeals, one against the order of eviction and the other against the order imposing damages. Both these appeals have been allowed by judgments and Orders dated 30-3-1999, passed by the Additional District Judge, Mapusa. By the impugned judgments, the Appellate Court held that the notice of termination is, sued to respondent No.1 was not in terms of the Transfer of Property Act and, therefore, the respondent No.1 could not be termed as unauthorised occupant and further held that since respondent No. 1 was not an unauthorised occupant, there was no question of a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document