EKNATH KIRA AKHADKAR AND ANR ; ZAIRAM BHIKAJI NEVGUI; PURSHOTTAM VITHAL NAIK; RAMCHANDRA NILU PARRIKAR; DAHAJ MINERALS LTD ; PEDRO MANUEL SA; XEC ABBAS XEC IBRAHIM Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND 4 ORS ; KESHAV BHAGWANT PAI VERNEKAR AND 6 ORS; DURGABAI RAIKAR AND 2 ORS ; MARIA ANGELICA FARIA AND 2 ORS ; DEVDATTA P SHIRODKAR AND 2 ORS ; MARIO RIBEIRO DE SANTANA AND 2 ORS ; JOAO FILIPE DO REGO AND 2 ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These appeals arise out of a common judgment whereunder the Writ Petitions Nos. 166/8/75,136/8/78,19/8/78,178/8/82,28/8/77,113/8/77 and 2/8/77 of the respective appellants have been dismissed. The original proceedings were filed under the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, (hereinafter referred to as the "Goa Rent Act"). The respective landlords claimed possession on the ground of non-payment of rent. They succeeded before the authorities under the Goa Rent Act. Hence the appellants had filed abovementioned writ petitions challenging their eviction.

(2.) When these matters were called out for hearing it was suggested by the learned advocates for both the sides that we should initially decide two questions viz. 1) whether the Letters Patent Appeals are competent and 2) whether the amendment of 1976 (which came into force during the pendency of these proceedings before the Rent Control Authority) to the Goa Rent Act has retrospective operation. Though ordinarily we would have liked to decide these matters once and for all including the abovementioned questions of law, we were informed that it would be in the interest of the parties that we should decide them initially. The appeals will have to be dismissed if they are not maintainable. Similarly the proceedings initiated by the respondents-landlords would have to be rejected without going into the merits, in case we come to a conclusion that the 1976 amendment has a retrospective effect. In this background we acceded to the request of the learned advocates to decide these questions in the first instance. The learned advocates have, therefore, made their submissions only about these questions. The necessity or otherwise of advancing arguments on the factual aspects of the writ petitions does not arise at this stage.

(3.) Preliminary point has been raised on behalf of the respondents-landlords that these Letters Patent Appeals are not maintainable. Under the relevant provisions of the High Court Rules as applicable for the judicial business at Panaji applications under article 226 and 227 of the Constitution including applications styled as applications under article 227 read with 226 of the Constitution arising out of the orders passed under the Goa Rent Act are to be heard by the Single Judge. Hence the matters under these appeals were heard and disposed of by the learned Single Judge. Shri Dias, the learned Counsel for the respondents-landlords contended that the writ petitions under appeal were filed under article 227 of the Constitution and that it is accepted position of law that the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable against the decision in such applications. It is, however, material to note that some of the writ petitions under appeal were filed upon article 226 of the Constitution. It could not be disputed before us that orders in writ petitions under article 226 would be appealable under the Letters Patent. The remaining writ petitions under appeal were purported to be filed under article 226 and article 227 of the Constitution. At one time there was some controversy whether a petition purported to be filed under Article 226 and 227 would be appealable. however, that controversy is now set at rest by the full bench decision of this Court in the case of State of Maharashtra v. Kusum, 1981 MhLJ 93. In that case the full bench held that there would be an appeal against the decision in an application filed under article 226 read with 227 of the Constitution. In view of this position, the present Letters Patent Appeals are maintainable and there is no substance in the contention of Shri Dias about the non-maintainability of these appeals.