1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.834 OF 2009 1. Mr. Michael Anthony William Gareth, 2. Mrs. Amelia Gareth Both residing at Municipal no.73, St. Tome Road, Panaji-Goa. ...... Petitioners V e r s u s 1. Mrs. Maria do Rosario Da Fatima A.L. Faria e Alvares, alias Fatima Alvares, Residing at municipal No.73/1, St. Tome Road, Panaji-Goa. 2. Administrative Tribunal of Goa, Panaji-Goa. ....... Respondents Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. M.B. Da Costa, Senior Advocate for the Respondents. DATE: 25TH AUGUST, 2010. CORAM: A. P. LAVANDE, J. ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. M.B. Da Costa, Senior Advocate for the Respondent no.1. 2. Respondent no.2 is a formal party. Rule. By consent heard forthwith. 3. By this petition, the Petitioners have challenged the judgment and order dated 7.10.2009 passed by the Respondent no. 2 2 dismissing the appeal preferred by the Petitioners herein against the Judgment and Order dated 25.1.2006 passed by the Rent Controller, Panaji, ordering eviction of the petitioners from the suit premises. 4. The Petitioners preferred Eviction Appeal No.3 of 2006 before the Respondent no.2 challenging the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller, Panaji. The final arguments in the appeal were heard on 22.8.2006 and the same was fixed for judgment on 28.9.2006. The record discloses that thereafter, the judgment was adjourned on 33 occasions and ultimately the judgment was passed on 7.10.2009. Before passing of the judgment the learned Presiding officer of the Tribunal sought certain clarifications from the advocates appearing for the parties on 19.6.2009 and the record discloses that brief arguments were heard on behalf of both the parties on that day. 5. Mr. Lotlikar, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioners submitted that the impugned judgment has been passed almost after a period of three years and that a number of contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners before the Tribunal have not been considered. Placing reliance upon the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the 3 case of Pradeep K.R. Sangodker, Goa Vs. State of Goa and another reported in (2006 (2) Goa Law Reporter 343), Mr. Lotlikar further submitted that the learned Tribunal has clearly acted in breach of he directions given in the said judgment which was delivered on 24.8.2006. Mr. Lotlikar submitted that although certain clarifications were sought by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, he has clearly acted in breach of the directions issued in the said judgment. Mr. Lotlikar submitted that although certain clarifications were sought by the presiding Offier of the Tribunal on 19.6.2009,delivery of the judgemnt after a period of almost three years has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners in as much as, several contentions advanced on behalf of the petitioners have not been considered in the judgment. He, therefore, submitted that the impugned Judgment and order should be set aside and the matter remanded to the Tribunal for fresh decision after hearing both sides. 5. Mr. M.B. Da Costa, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent no.1 submitted that although the impugned judgment has been passed by the Tribunal after a period of almost three years, the Tribunal heard both the sides on 19.6.2009 and sought certain clarification from the advocates appearing on both 4 sides and permitted both the sides to file written statements. Mr. Da Costa further submitted that the parties had also field written statements soon after conclusion of the arguments in the year 2006. He, therefore, submitted that no case has been made out by the petitioners to remand the matter to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. 6. Although several other contentions have been raised in the petition, I do not deemed it necessary to deal with all the contentions, since the petition is liable to be disposed of on a short ground argued by Mr. Lotlikar. 7. The record discloses that the final arguments were heard on 22.6.2006 and the matter was fixed for judgment on 28.9.2006. Just before the expiry of three years, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal sought certain clarification in the matter and accordingly heard briefly the learned counsel for the parties on 19.6.2009. This was clearly in breach of the directions given by the learned Single Judge in the case of Pradeep K.R. Sangodker, (supra), relied upon by Mr. Lotlikar. In view of the said judgment, the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal was expected to fix the matter for fresh arguments since he had not delivered the judgment for a considerable length of time. The mere fact that the Presiding 5 Officer sought certain clarifications from the counsel appearing on both sides on 19.6.2009 does not amount to compliance of the directions given by the learned Single Judge in the case of Pradeep K.R. Sangodker,(supra), after taking note of the fact that the judgment was pronounced, after more than 15 months. One of the directions was that when arguments are heard in the matter, the judgment should be pronounced within a period of 3 months from the date of conclusion of the arguments. It is obvious that the said direction has not been complied with by the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal. I find merit in the submission of Mr. Lotlikar that by not delivering of the judgment within the time stipulated in th case of Pradeep K.R. Sangodker, ( supra), the same has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners and on this count the impugned judgment and order passed by the Respondent no.2 deserves to be quashed and set aside. The Presiding officer of the Tribunal is expected to comply with the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Pradeep K.R. Sangodker, in letter and spirit in future. 8. In view of the above discussion, the impugned judgment and order dated 17.10.2009 passed by the Respondent no.2 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal shall hear the parties 6 afresh and pass appropriate order in accordance with law, expeditiously, and in any case, within a period of two months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties either personally or through their advocates are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 14th September, 2010 at 10.30 a.m. 9. Rule is made absolute in aforesaid terms. A. P. LAVANDE, J. Ap/-