F.M. Reis, J.- Heard Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri V.P. Thali learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 to 8.

2. Rule, Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel.

3. Shri V.P. Thali learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 8.

4. The above petition challenges the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and Deputy Collector dated 16/08/1999 as well as the judgment passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal dated 02/09/2010 in Eviction Appeal No. 59/1999.

5. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioners are that the petitioners are the tenants in respect of the premises bearing H.No. 80 and appurtenant land situated in the property bearing Chalta Nos. 25 and 34 of P.T. sheet No. 43 of City Survey Panaji. admeasuring an area of 241 square metres. It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 has been conducting business in the said premises in the name and style of 'Jose Bar & Restaurant'.

6. Respondents No. 1 to 8 filed the Eviction application No. 80/1990 under Section 30 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1968 before the Additional Rent Controller, North Goa at Panaji for recovery of possession of the said premises for the purpose of reconstruction of the building.

7. The petitioners opposed the said application for delivery of possession of the said premises to the respondents. After holding an inquiry and recording of evidence. the Additional Rent Controller by judgment and order dated 16/08/1999 allowed the application filed by the respondents thereby directing the petitioners to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises bearing Chalta No. 25 of P.T. sheet No. 43 to the respondents No. 1 to 7 on or before 30/09/1999 and the respondents were directed to provide for alternate premises to all the petitioners jointly, free of consideration and within 500 metres from the tenanted premises within a period of 15 days from the date of vacating the possession of the tenanted premises by the petitioners. The respondents were further directed to hand over the rebuilt tenanted premises admeasuring 101 square metres of plinth area to all the petitioners jointly at the same place, as far as possible where the tenanted premises were situated and before the expiry of two years from the date of handing over such possession. The respondents were also directed to pay costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioners.

8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the Rent Controller, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after hearing the arguments of the petitioners and the reply filed by the respondents posted the matter for judgment on 05/06/2006. Ultimately, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal preferred by the petitioners by judgment and order dated 02/09/2010 dismissing the eviction application filed by the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Authorities below the petitioners have preferred the above Writ Petition.

9. Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised three contentions in support of the above petition. The first contention is that the Tribunal was not justified to partly hear the final arguments on 05/06/2006 and dispose of the eviction appeal only in September 2010 which according to the learned Counsel is a procedure which is unheard of in law. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the advocate for the petitioners was heard originally and thereafter the matter was posted for written arguments on the part of the respondents and such written arguments came to be filed on behalf of the respondents and the matter was thereafter posted for rejoinder to the written arguments by the petitioners. The learned Counsel further pointed out that accordingly, such written arguments came to be filed by the petitioners' advocat