1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 339 OF 2009 1. Smt. Laura Furtado(since deceased), major in age, w/o late Andrew Avelino Furtado, r/o H.No.211, Mangor Hill, next to Government High School, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. 2. Shri Brian A. Furtado, major in age, son of late Andrew Avelino Furtado, resident of H.No.211, Mangor Hill, near Govt. High School, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. 3. Smt. Arlene Furtado, major in age, wife of Shri Brian A. Furtado, r/o H. No.211, Mangor Hill, next to Govt. High School, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. 4. Kum. Yvonne Maria Furtado Major in age, daughter of late Shri Andrew Avelino Furtado, r/o Mumbai and H. No. 211, Mangor Hill, next to Govt. High School, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. ... Petitioners versus 1. Shri Kenneth Pereira, major in age, son of late Ciano Pereira, r/o Mangor Hill, Vasco, postal address C/o Pereira Chambers, Fr. Jose Vaz Road, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. 2 2. Shri Ratnakar R. Prabhu, major in age, Manager-Veg-Section, La Bella Bar & Restaurant, Opp. Railway Station, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. ... Respondents Petitioner No.4 in person, present. Shri E. O. Mendes, Advocate for Respondent No.1. CORAM : N. A. BRITTO, J. DATE : 15TH JUNE, 2009. ORAL ORDER Heard the Petitioner No.4 in person and Shri E. O. Mendes, learned Counsel on behalf of Respondent No.1. 2. Challenge in this petition is to the Order dated 17-4-2009 of the learned Administrative Tribunal by which the revision filed by the Petitioners have been dismissed. 3. Respondent No.1 claiming to the landlord filed Eviction Proceeding against the Petitioners herein, as tenants, for their eviction in terms of Section 22(2)(b)(i) of the Goa, Daman & Diu Buildings(Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. The Petitioners/tenants on being served with notice, filed an 3 application dated 1-11-2000 before the Rent Controller seeking better particulars. The said application came to be allowed of by Order dated 8-6-2001 by which Respondent No.1 was directed to furnish the particulars. The said particulars were given by reply dated 22-6-2001. Thereafter, the Petitioners filed another application dated 9-7-2001. In this application the Petitioners prayed in terms of prayer clause (a) that the application be dismissed for not complying with the order of the Rent Controller. Prayers (b) to d) were sought in the alternative. The Petitioners also sought certain further particulars in terms of prayer clause(c). This application came to be disposed of by Order dated 17-1-2002 which reads as follows:- “Application dated 9th July, 2001 is allowed. Applicant is directed to furnish all the information sought out by Respondent No.2 on the next date of hearing”. 4. The Petitioner No.4 claims that immediately after Order dated 17-1-2002 was passed, an application was filed by the Petitioners for clarification of the said Order dated 17-1-2002 but the said application was withdrawn as according to Petitioner No.4 the learned Rent Controller orally stated that he was not inclined to clarify the order. It is interesting to note that there is no mention in this petition to the said application. In fact, it could have been the right course for the Petitioners to have adopted in case the Petitioners wanted a correct interpretation of the Order dated 17-1-2002 as an order amounting to rejection of the main application of Respondent No.1. 4 5. Shri E. O. Mendes, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.1 submits, that even before Respondent No.1 could comply with the said Order dated 17-1-2002 the Petitioners filed revision application before the learned Tribunal. Shri Mendes further submits that Respondent No.1 will certainly comply with the Order dated 17-1-2002 and furnish to the Petitioners whatever documents are contemplated by the said order. 6. The learned Tribunal by impugned Order dated 17-4-2009 has concluded that the conclusive part of the impugned Judgment clearly indicates that the learned Rent Controller has come to the findings that it is necessary to direct the Respondents to furnish all the information. The learned Tribunal further observed that this has been followed with the order. It is further observed that the first part of the order cannot be segregated from the second part as contended by the applicants and it is very clear that the learned Controller has granted prayer (d) of the application dated 9-7-2001. The learned Tribunal has also stated that the applicants are not assailing the said order in its entirety but the second part of the order on the basis of the interpretation as is mentioned by him. With the said observations, the learned Tribunal proceeded to dispose of the revision. 7. As already stated, in case any clarification was required of the Order dated 17-1-2002 the right forum was the Rent Controller himself. However, the 5 Petitioners filed an application and withdrew the same. This fact is not reflected anywhere in the petition and for this reason also the petition needs to be rejected for suppression of material facts. In my view, the Order dated 17-1-2002 has been rightly interpreted by the learned Tribunal. There was no question of the main application of Respondent No.1 being dismissed in terms of prayer (a) of the application dated 9-7-2001. If that was the case, the learned Rent Controller would not have directed Respondent No.1 to furnish other information sought by the Petitioners by virtue of the said application. In my view, nothing survives in this application in view of the statement now made by Shri Mendes, learned Counsel for Respondent No.1/landlord and the interpretation given by the learned Tribunal to the Order dated 17-1-2002. In case the Orders dated 8-6-2001 and 17-1-2002 are not complied with, the Petitioners would be at liberty to object to the production of documents, copies of which are not given. But that can be done at the appropriate stage, and not before hand, when documents are sought to be produced. 8. I therefore find there is no merit in this petition. Consequently, the same is hereby dismissed with costs. 9. Shri Mendes submits that the proceedings before the Tribunal are already fixed on 19th instant. 6 10. Petitioner No.4 seeks stay of this Order for a period of 20 days. In my opinion, this is not a fit case for grant of stay. Request rejected. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD