VASCO ARNALDO DO CORACAO DE JESUS v. STATE OF GOA

Mr. M. B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J. A. Lobo, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P. Talaulikar, Addl. Govt. Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Valmiki Menezes, Advocate under Legal Aid Scheme for respondent No.2. Coram:- A. S. OKA & F. M. REIS, JJ. Date:- 21st July, 2010 P.C.:- We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner. We have also heard the learned Counsel appointed to espouse the cause of the second respondent. An affidavit in reply is filed by respondent No.2.

Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner invited our attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar vs. Ved Prakash and ors., ((2010) 2 SCC 264). He submitted that in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the said decision, the application for eviction filed by the petitioner ought to have been considered under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the Goa, Daman and Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. He states that at this stage, the petitioner does not want to press prayers (a) and (b) of this petition. He prays that the petitioner be permitted to withdraw this petition, with liberty to file a fresh application for eviction on the same cause of action in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ashok Kumar (supra). The learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the application which may be made by the petitioner under clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the said Act of 1968 will not be maintainable.

We dismiss this petition as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed. We, however, keep all the contentions of the parties on merits of the application to be filed by the petitioner, expressly open. It is obvious that the contention raised by the learned Counsel appearing for the second respondent about the maintainability of the proposed application is also kept open. A. S. OKA, J. F. M. REIS, J. ssm.