1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA PANAJI APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO. 38 OF 2007 Shri Kashinath Babli Parab ] (since deceased), through his legal heirs ] 1. Smt. Anusuya Kashinath Parab ] 2. Shri Anand alias Laxmikant K. Parab] 3. Shri Sitakant Kashinath Parab ] 4. Jayanti Parab ] 5. Bharati Parab ] 6. Shanti Parab ] 7. Indira V. Parab ] 8. Vanita P. Sawant ] 9. Sulbha S. Phadte ] 10.Prakash Sawant ] 11.Shridhar Phadte ] 12.Shivram Tari ] All represented by their duly constituted ] attorney Shri Sitakant Kashinath Parab ] Resident of House No. 42, Malbhat ] Margao, Salcete, Goa ]..Petitioners versus 1. Shri Antonio Mariano Antao ] (since deceased) through his legal ] representatives ] 2. Smt.Maria Santana Colacoo E Antao] (since deceased) through her legal ] representatives : ] (a) Collette Fernandes ] (b) Shri Joseph Micheal Antao ] (since deceased) ] 2(b)(i) Smt. Annie Antao ] widow of deceased respondent 2(b) 2(b)(ii) Smt. Sandra Antao Mani ] daughter of deceased respdt. 2(b) ] 2(b)(iii) Shri Sunil Mani ] son in law of deceased respdt.2(b) ] 2(b)(iv) Shri Allan Antao ] son of deceased respondent 2(b) ] 2(b)(v) Smt. Syble Antao ] 2 Daughter in law of deceased ] respondent No.2(b) ] All resident of Aquem Baize, Margao ] Salcete Goa ] (c) Smt. Rose Vaz ] (d) Shri Louis Anthony Antao ] (e) Smt. Esther Dias ] (f) Shri Judith Moraes ] (g) Shri Edith Fernandes ] (h) Smt. Janet Fernandes ] (i) Shri Aurelito Antao ] Residents of Aquem Baixe, Margao ] Salcete Goa ]..Respondents Mr. V. P. Thali, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar with Mr. M.G.S. Khandeparkar for the Respondents. WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 39 OF 2007 1. Adv. Pramod Hede ] 2. Mrs. Vandana Hede ] Both r/o. Malbhat, Margao, Goa ]..Petitioners versus 1. Shri Antonio Mariano Antao ] (since deceased) through his legal ] representatives : ] 2. Smt. Maria Santana Colacao ] E Antao (since deceased) through ] her legal representatives ] (a) Collette Fernandes ] (b) Joseph Michael Antao ] (c) Rose Vaz ] (d) Louis Anthony Antao ] 3 (e) Esther Dias ] (f) Judith Moraes ] (g) Edith Fernandes ] (h) Janet Fernandes ] (i) Shri Aurelito Antao ] All r/o. Aquem Baixe, Margao, ] Salcete, Goa ] 3. Shri Shantaram Hede ] (since deceased) through his legal ] representatives ] (a) Dr. Anant Hede ] (b) Mrs. Anant Hede ] (c) Dr. Tushar Hede ] (d) Mrs. Tushar Hede ] All r/o/ Paradise Apts., A/3/4, 2nd floor ] Aquem, Margao, Goa ] (e) Dr. Santosh Hede ] (f) Mrs. Santosh Hede ] Both r/o. C/o. Asilo Hospital, ] Mapusa, Goa ] (g) Mrs. Premabai Hede, ] r/o. Malbhat, Margao, Goa ]..Respondents Mr. Nitin Sardessai, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Sudin Usgaonkar with M.G.S. Khandeparkar, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. V. Rodriques, Advocate for the Respondent Nos. 3(A) to 3(G) absent. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 10 th April, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT : 1. Rule in both the Petitions. Returnable forthwith. Heard by 4 consent. 2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Administrative Tribunal has rejected the petitioners appeals on the basis that there was no need to examine the grounds pertaining to the existence of a bonafide need of the premises by the respondents-landlords. This contention is correct. Indeed, the Tribunal has observed vide paragraph 14 (page No. 97 of writ petition No. 39 of 2007) that : “..... there is no question of bonafide requirement under Section 23(1)(a)(i) of the Act...” This observation is not in accordance with law. It is settled law vide Dr. Mulla Malhandas Khemani, since deceased by his heir 1(A) Mrs. Sundeera Mulo Khemani vs. Shri Avelino Gregorio D'souza, since deceased, represented by his legal representatives 1(a) Mrs. Blarche D'souza and ors. [2000(1) Goa L.T. 154] that the need of the landlord must be bonafide. Indeed, that is the requirement of Section 25 of The Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction), Control Act, 1968, which reads as follows: “25. Controller to decide right to possession.- The Controller shall, if he is satisfied that the claim of the landlord under 5 section 23 is bonafide, make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building on such date as may be specified by the Controller and if the Controller is not satisfied, he shall make an order rejecting the application. Provided that in the case of an application under sub-section (3) of section 23, the Controller shall reject the application, if he is satisfied that the hardship which may be caused to the tenant by granting it will outweigh the advantage to the landlord: Provided further that the Controller may give to a tenant a reasonable time of not less than three months and not exceeding six months, for putting the landlord in possession of the building and may extend such time so as not to exceed six months in the aggregate from the date of the order.” 3. In this view of the matter, though it is contended by Mr. Usgaonkar, the learned counsel for the respondents that the finding of the lower court which is confirmed by the Tribunal is on the basis that the respondents need the premises bonafide, I am of view the appellate court has nonetheless failed to examine the grounds raised by the petitioners from the point of view of bonafide need of the respondents. This is because the appellate court was of the view that no question of bonafides arise where the landlords seek eviction under Section 23. 4. In this view of the matter, I am of view that the interest of justice would be served if the judgments of the Tribunal in both the 6 matters are set aside since it suffer from the error of law apparent on the face of the record and the matters are remanded back to the Tribunal for afresh decision in accordance with law. Having regard to the circumstances of the cases, the Tribunal is directed to decide the Appeals afresh within a period of two months from the date parties appear before the Tribunal. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28th April, 2008. Rule made absolute in both the petitions. S. A. BOBDE, J. skc