The Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968 was applicable in Panaji from its inception and procedural fairness was upheld in eviction processes.

JUDGMENT:

Rule. Rule returnable forthwith. The matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage with the consent of the parties.

2. Heard learned Counsel Mr Kaif Noorani for the Petitioner and learned Senior Counsel Mr M.B. D'Costa appearing with learned Counsel Mr Rehan Abbasi for the Respondents.

3. With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties, I have perused the entire record and more specifically the grounds.

4. Mr Kaif Noorani appearing for the Petitioner submitted that the rent case was decided by the authority without jurisdiction as at the relevant time, the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968 was not made applicable to the City of Panaji. In this respect, he relied upon notification issued by the Government from time to time and more specifically five notifications published on 30.09.1969. He would submit that Section 1(2) of the Rent Act gives power to the Government to extend the said Act and its provisions from time to time by issuing separate notifications. He submits that notification dated 30.09.1969 clearly excluded the Town of Panaji. According to him, the Act was notified for entire Goa from 23.12.1980. Thus, the proceedings filed by the Respondent in the year 1976 before the Rent Controller and specifically under the provisions of Rent Control Act, 1968 were without jurisdiction.

5. The second submission of Mr Noorani is that the Rent Controller on 24.09.1983 observed in the Roznama that the case is fixed for orders which was supposed to be communicated to the parties. According to Mr Noorani, no such order was passed or ever communicated to the parties by the same Presiding Officer or by any other officer, till the time when the Applicant received notice in the execution proceedings filed by the Respondent to execute the order/judgment passed by the Rent Controller dated 20.11.1985. Such execution proceedings were filed in the year 2003. Only after receipt of such notice, the Petitioner approached the Rent Controller and obtained certified copy. Only thereafter the Petitioner approached the Administrative Tribunal of Goa in Rent Appeal No.8/2016, who condoned the delay. In the meantime, the jurisdiction to decide rent appeals was conferred on the District Court and accordingly the appeal was registered as Rent Appeal No.8/2016 before the District Court, North Goa, Panaji. Vide Judgment dated 01.04.2019, the appeal was dismissed thereby confirming the order of eviction, which is challenged in the present petition.

6. Mr Noorani submitted that the person who heard the matter as the Rent Controller, was not the same person who decided the rent eviction proceedings and that the judgment which was passed is a handwritten judgment, having many corrections in it. He submitted that the officer who decided the rent eviction proceedings as Rent Controller did not give any opportunity to the Petitioner to argue the matter and therefore, there is clear violation of principles of natural justice. In this respect, he relied upon the following decisions:-

a) Nirmala Kashinath Rau and Ors. vs. Smt. Ratan Vassudev Dhempe and Ors,2002 (4) Mh.L.J. 568 b) Automotive Tyre manufacturers Association vs. Designated Authority and Ors, (2011) 2 SCC 258, c) Celina Almeida vs. Minister of Urban Development , Goa and Ors., 2013 (4) Mh.L.J. 53 and d) Saurav Jain and Anr. vs. A.B.P. Design and Anr,2021 SCC OnLine SC 552

7. The learned Senior Counsel Mr M.B. D'Costa appearing for the Respondents would submit that first of all, the issue which is now raised before this Court regarding violation of principles of natural justice and not giving opportunity to the Petitioner by the Officer who decided the eviction proceedings, was not at all raised before the Administrative Tribunal. Even otherwise, Mr D'Cost