IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 651 OF 2008 ARCHDIOCESE OF GOA DAMAN AND DIU THROUGH PROCURATOR ANGEL DE MELLO AND ANR., ... Petitioners Versus CRUZ ZUZARTE AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Coelho Pereira, Senior Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. A. D. Bhobe, Advocate for the respondent no.1. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 18th December, 2008 P.C. This petition is directed against judgment and order dated 13.06.2008 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Panaji in Eviction Appeal No.14/2006 dismissing the appeal against order dated 27.04.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Mapusa in Case No.Rent/Map/08/2005, by which the Rent Controller directed the petitioner to restore essential services, namely electricity and water connection to the suit premises within a period of seven days. The respondent no.1 claiming himself to be the tenant of the petitioners filed an application under section 35 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act 1968 ('The Act" for short). After hearing the parties and without conducting an inquiry, the learned Rent Controller passed an order directing the petitioners to restore amenities within a period of seven days. Against the said order, the petitioners preferred the above appeal which has been dismissed by the impugned order. The petitioners have invoked Article 227 of the Constitution of India and have challenged both the said orders. When the matter came up for admission, Mr. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel was called upon to satisfy as to how an appeal under section 45 of the Act was maintainable since the impugned order was passed under section 35 (3) of the Act. Mr. Pereira submitted that the impugned passed by the Rent Controller was an order under section 35 (3) of the Act and not a final order and therefore, in terms of Section 45 of the Act, an appeal to the Administrative Tribunal was not maintainable. According to Mr. Pereira, the impugned order passed by the Rent Controller is revisable. Mr. Pereira therefore, seeks leave to withdraw the appeal filed before the Administrative Tribunal with a prayer that the impugned order passed by the Administrative Tribunal be quashed and set aside and liberty be given to the petitioner to avail remedy of revision in terms of Section 46 of the Act. The prayer has been opposed by Mr. Bhobe, learned counsel for the respondent no.1. Since the Rent Controller passed the impugned order, without holding an inquiry, necessary sequitur is that the said order is an interim order and as such, an appeal under section 45 of the Act is not maintainable against the said order. In this back ground, I am inclined to accede to request of Mr. Pereira for withdrawal of the appeal before the Administrative Tribunal. Consequently, the impugned order passed by the Administrative Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The petitioners are at liberty to avail whatever appropriate remedy, if available in law. Needless to mention all the contentions of the respondents are kept open. Needless also to mention that the respondent no.1 is also at liberty to avail appropriate remedy available in law. It is made clear that I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter and the impugned judgment and order passed by the Administrative Tribunal is quashed and set aside only on the ground of non maintainability of the appeal. Petition is disposed of in the above terms. A. P. LAVANDE, J. lh/.