IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 241 OF 2008 MR. PHILIP A. COUTINHO ... Petitioner Versus MR. ARMSTRONG RODRIGUES ... Respondent Ms. Susan Linhares, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C. A. Coutinho, Advocate for the respondent. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 5th January, 2009 P.C. Heard counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondent. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, whereby the order passed by the Deputy Collector cum Rent Controller has been confirmed. The present respondent had moved an application under section 35 of the Rent Control Act, since he alleged that being a tenant of the suit premises, he was entitled to electricity supply. It was alleged that the respondent disconnected the electricity supply available to him. This has resulted in loss of his business. The learned Rent Controller passed an order on 04.09.2007 directing the respondent to restore the supply of electricity to the suit premises within a period of two days of the receipt of the order. It was also directed to issue notice to the petitioner/landlord as to why the exparte order passed by the Court on 04.09.2007 should not be confiremd. The notice, it is alleged was pasted on the closed door of the house of the landlord. An application was made before the Rent Controller for substituted service. The Rent Controller allowed the application. Subsequently it was alleged that the summons was pasted on the door of landlord. Since the landlord did not appear the learned Rent Controller passed an order on 09.09.2007 confirming the said order dated 04.09.2007. An application was made before the Rent Controller on 16.10.2007 for resumption of the electricity supply by the Electricity Board as supply was not yet resumed. Before any order was passed the Tribunal had stayed the order passed by the Rent Controller. The Tribunal heard the matter and rejected the appeal. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Tribunal should have seen that no opportunity whatsoever was given by the Rent Controller to the petitioner to make out his case. She submitted that when there was no notice, it was all the more necessary for the Tribunal to remit the matter back to the Rent Controller. The learned counsel for the respondent on the otherhand, submitted that the records would reveal that enough opportunity was given to the petitioner and inspite of opportunity having been given to the petitioner to make out his case, he has not contested the case and no fault can therefore, be found in the order passed by the Tribunal. I was taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner through the grounds raised in the memo of appeal. One of the grounds raised in the appeal was non service to the petitioner. Inspite of the fact that such ground was raised, it was not considered. Had he really considered the ground, he would have found that no opportunity was given to the petitioner and it was necessary to hold an inquiry as to whether the notice was actually served on the petitioner or not. Without holding such an inquiry, it could not have been said that an opportunity was given to the petitioner to contest the petition. In the circumstances, I find that it is necessary for this Court now to remit back the case to the Rent Controller to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to contest the application under section 35 of the Rent Control Act. Section 35 contemplates an inquiry. It would therefore be necessary to hold inquiry on two aspects: (i) Whether the notice was actually served on the present petitioner or not ? and (ii) to give an opportunity to the present petitioner to contest the petition by placing relevant material on record. In view of this, the petition is allowed. The orders passed by the Administrative Tribunal and the Rent Controller are set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the Rent Controller for fresh inquiry and decision afresh. The Rent Controller shall decide the matter in any case, within a period of two months. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. lh/.