1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.680 OF 2011 1. Shri Sham Balkrishna Gaude (since deceased) Through his legal heirs a) Smt. Mohini Sham Gaude, b) Sushant Sham Gaude, c) Sunil Sham Gaude, d) Upendra Sham Gaude, All r/o. Gauthan, Priol, Ponda Goa. …. Petitioners V/s 1. Smt. Satyawati Raghu Mhadaykar @ Gaude, 2. Shri Rajendra Raghu Mhadaykar @ Gaude, Both r/o C/o Ramesh Anant Prabhatkar Vailebhat, Merces – Goa. …. Respondents Shri G. Agni, Advocate for the Petitioners. Shri G. Shirodkar, Advocate for the Respondents. CORAM : F.M. REIS, J. DATE : 14th NOVEMBER, 2011 JUDGMENT : Heard Shri G. Agni, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri Guru Shirodkar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. Rule. Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned 2 Counsel. Learned Counsel for the respondents waives service. 3. The above petition challenges the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Tenancy Revision Application Un- Reg.No.59/2011 whereby the revision petition of the petitioners came to be rejected essentially on the ground that such revision was not maintainable. 4. At the hearing of the above petition, both the Counsel do not dispute that while disposing of Writ Petition No.18/2010 by order dated 29/03/2011, this Court has taken the view that the second revision under Section 50(2) of the Act to the Administrative Tribunal against an order passed by the Deputy Collector is maintainable. Both the Counsel do not dispute that the facts in the present case are similar to the facts in the said Writ Petition and that the impugned order passed by the Deputy Collector is not an interim order. 5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and for reasons recorded in the order passed in Writ Petition 3 No.18/2010, I find that the impugned order passed by the Administrative Tribunal cannot be sustained and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 6. In view of the above, I pass the following order: O R D E R (i) The impugned order dated 13/09/2011 passed by the Administrative Tribunal in Revision Application No.59/2011 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The Tenancy Revision Application Un- Reg.59/2011 is restored to the file of the Administrative Tribunal. (iii) The Tribunal is directed to decide the said revision afresh after hearing both the parties in accordance with law. (iv) All the contentions raised by both the parties on merits are left open. (v) Rule is disposed of in the above terms. (vi) Petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. (vii) The parties are directed to appear to appear before the Tribunal on 12/12/2011 at 10.30 a.m. and abide by its further directions. F.M. REIS, J. NH/-