1. Heard Shri A. F. Diniz, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants and Shri M. B. D' Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents.

2. The above Appeal was admitted on 27.01.2005 on the following two substantial questions of law:

(1) Whether though the relief sought in the suit styled as permanent mandatory injunction, in substance it was suit for eviction of the tenant protected under the Goa Buildings (lease, Rent and Eviction Control) Act, 1968 as the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to entertain it?

(2) Whether the finding recorded by the learned 1st Appellate Court that the signature on NOC is not that of Soiru, is perverse being contrary to the evidence on record and primarily based on comparison which the learned Appellate Judge himself proceeded to do of one of the admitted signatures of Soiru and the signature on the NOC thereby acting as an expert in identification of hand writings, thereby overstepping his jurisdiction and also in view of the fact that the learned 1st Appellate court failed to compare the signature on the NOC with other admitted signatures of Soiru who signed in many different ways.”

Thereafter, by Order dated 05.08.2005, three