1. The petition challenges the Judgment and Order dated 29/12/2016 passed by the Appellate Board, North Goa, Panaji, filed by the petitioner challenging the Judgment and Order dated 15/01/1997 passed by the Additional Rent Controller-II, Mapusa whereby the appeal filed by him was dismissed with costs and the respondents case for his eviction from the suit premises was allowed with a direction to the petitioner to handover the vacant and peaceful possession thereof to the respondent within a defined time.

2. Shri R.G. Ramani, learned Counsel came to be heard on behalf of the petitioner who submitted at the outset that in the absence of the Lease Deed, there was no jurisdiction vested in the Rent Controller to deal with the eviction proceedings. He adverted to the pleadings and submitted that there were neither any rent receipts on record nor a written Lease Deed. The petitioner had taken a clear plea of Mundkarship in respect of the suit premises and in the absence of any landlord tenant relationship, there was no jurisdiction in the Rent Controller. The learned Appellate Court had not assigned proper reasons and dismissed his appeal. The Appellate Court held that he had failed to prove the issue of Mundkarship, disputed the status of the respondents as his landlord and by reverse arguments, decided in favour of the respondents. He adverted to the evidence led on record and submitted that the Rent Controller and the Appellate Court on the basis of stray admissions of arrears of rent held against him and his plea of Mundkarship.

3. Shri R.G. Ramani, learned Advocate for the petitioner relied in an unreported Judgment in Shri Ankush Wadkar vs. Shri Shaik Nuha Shaikh (Writ Petition No.213/1986), referred to Section 34 of the Rent Control Act ('the Act', for short hereinafter) requiring the execution of a written Lease and submitted that no evidence could be brought contrary to the terms of Section 91 of the Indian Evidence Act. In the absence of any Lease Agreement and rent receipts, there was no jurisdiction in the Rent Controller in respect of the suit premises. He relied in Smt. Sumati Naik vs. Shri Dilip Fatarpekar [2002(1) Goa L.T. 38], Smt. Safiabi w/o Shaikh Abdul Razak and others vs. Smt. Delfina Gomes and others [2002(2) ALL MR 61], Delfina Gomes Pinto and others vs. Safiabi and others [2004 Goa L.R. 266] and Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and another vs. Indusind Bank Ltd. and others [(2005) 2 SCC 217] and submitted that the respondent had not at all entered the witness box but her son had entered the box and deposed on the basis of what the mother had stated. The orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Appellate Board were both required to be interfered with and, therefore, the petition had to be allowed in his favour.

4. Ms. A. Agni, learned Senior Counsel contended at the outset that there were concurrent finding of facts by the Courts below. There was a denial of the title of the landlord by the petitioner which was not bonafide. She relied in Jai Sing and others vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi and another [(2010)9 SCC 385]. She too adverted to the pleadings and the Written Statement in particular where the petitioner had denied the status of the respondents and referred to the evidence led on record. She distinguished the Judgment in Sumati Naik (supra), and relied in Shri Nestor Augusto Fortunato Gomes vs. Caetano Ficardo [1007(2) Goa L.T. 4]. It was further her contention that no ratio was laid down in Ankush Wadkar (supra), which merely gave a finding on facts and ultimately remanded the file to the Tribunal to comply with its direction. She further relied in Krishena Kumar vs. Union of India and others [AIR 1990 SC 1782], Arasmeta Captive Power Company Private Limited and another vs. Lafarge India Private Ltd. [(2013) 15 SCC 414] and Vishal N. Kalsaria vs. Bank of India and others [(2016)3 SCC 762]. She adverted to the definition of the 'landlord' contained in the Act under Section 2 (i), that of the 'ten