LEANCO VICTOR FROIS Vs. NICOLAO PIEDADE DCOSTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants had filed a suit for eviction, restoration of possession, permanent injunction and mesne profits. The case of the appellants is that they had leased suit house to the respondent on monthly rent of Rs. 2/ -. The respondent failed to pay the rent and after notice was given to vacate, suit in question was filed. The trial Court had decreed the suit partly and directed the respondent to vacate the suit house as well as pay rent for 3 years prior to institution of the suit. The respondent was further directed to pay Rs. 2/- per month from 1st May 1980, that is to say, from the date of filing the suit till eviction. The respondent filed appeal before the District Court and the learned Additional District Judge framed the following points for determination:-

(2.) THE appellants have come in second appeal on the following substantial questions of law framed in this Memo of Appeal:-

(3.) LEARNED advocate for the appellants urged before me that initially the Rent Control Act was extended to the cities of Panaji, Margao, Mapusa, Vasco, Daman and Diu with effect from 30th September 1969. Simultaneously, Notification was issued by the Administrator of Goa, Daman and Diu in terms of section 1 (2) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the said Act) whereby the provisions of the Act were also extended to areas specified in Column No. 3 of the Notification dated 30th September 1969. The contention advanced by learned advocate for the appellants is that the said Notification has been issued Talukawise and such belt of 2 kms. around the limits of the city of Panaji cannot include Penha de Franca, which falls in Bardez Taluka. He also pointed out that subsequently the Act in question has been extended to entire Goa with effect from 23rd December 1980. He, therefore, submits that the appeal be admitted on the substantial question of law framed in the Appeal Memo.