JUDGMENT - M.S. VAIDYA, J.:---This writ petition has arisen on account of the decision dated 27th June, 1994 given by the learned Additional District Judge B Court, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Suit No. 53 of 1993. The original appellant/petitioner has filed this petitioner contending that the learned Additional District Judge has not adverted to any of the points raised on behalf of the petitioner in the context of the liability which was sought to be fastened on the petitioner in a proceeding under section 12 of the Goa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1988. 2. On perusal of the copy of the Appeal Memo annexed at page 103 of the Paper Book, we find that the only point which was raised in that Appeal Memo by the petitioner was concerning omission (in hearing the petitioner), on the part of the respondent No. I in respect of the monetary claim that was made against him by respondent No. 2. The learned Additional Sessions Judge found, on examination of the relevant provisions, that there was no provision in the Rules for respondent No. 1 to give personal hearing to the appellant. Though, the Rules themselves may not contain any specific provision about personal hearing, the Rules of natural justice would require that whenever a liability, worth several thousands of Rupees was sought to be fastened on a party, the party should have been given some hearing and further, if it was not given by the Estate Officer himself (respondent No. 1), at least the Additional Sessions Judge should have given him an opportunity to agitate the relevant points. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has dismissed all the contentions on facts urged on behalf of the petitioner in his reply dated 16th August, 1993 (Ann. 6) in reply to notice in Form M (Ann. A), in one sentence saying that the impugned order passed by the Estate Officer did not contain any infirmity. No reasons are given to show how, even according to the Additional Sessions Judge, the respondent had become liable to pay the amount which was sought to be recovered by the respondent No. 1. Obviously enough, this is contrary to the principle of natural justice. 3. No reasons are given to show how, even according to the Additional Sessions Judge, the respondent had become liable to pay the amount which was sought to be recovered by the respondent No. 1. Obviously enough, this is contrary to the principle of natural justice. 3. The Appeal in question was preferred to the Judicial Authority and it would have been proper on the part of that Judicial Authority to examine whether or not, the amount sought to be recovered and in respect of which accounts were submitted in writing by the petitioner before the Estate Officer in his reply, were really due from him. If at all any contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner were not sustainable for certain reasons, it was necessary for the learned Additional Sessions Judge to record the reasons so as to enable us to understand his reasoning for rejecting the contentions. At this stage, at least, we should know what had induced the learned Additional District Judge had to think that the contentions raised by him were not sustainable at all. 4. In the light of the aforesaid observations, we think it necessary to set aside the impugned order dated 27th June, 1994 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge and to return the matter to the learned Sessions Judge with a direction to gave hearing to the parties as regards the dues and to record the reasons either for accepting or rejecting the contentions which were raised on behalf of the petitioner in his reply dated 16th August, 1993 filed before the Estate Officer. 5. In view of the fact that the Appeal Memo before the District Judge did not contain any grounds as regard the merits of his claim, we require the present appellant to deposit in the District Court, before he is given the opportunity of hearing, an amount of Rs. 76,492.50 without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner. The Additional District Judge may consider on merits the application, if any, made on behalf of the respondent No. 2 for withdrawal of the said amount. The learned Counsel for the appellant says that he would deposit the amount before the District Judge within two weeks from today. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the total dues inclusive of the interest amount to Rs. 95,000/- at present. Whatever remains the balance, on deposit of Rs. The learned Counsel for the appellant says that he would deposit the amount before the District Judge within two weeks from today. The learned Counsel for respondent No. 2 submits that the total dues inclusive of the interest amount to Rs. 95,000/- at present. Whatever remains the balance, on deposit of Rs. 76,482.50 in the Court, shall be guaranteed by the present petitioner by furnishing to the Court a Bank Guarantee for that amount The said Bank Guarantee shall also be furnished before the commencement of the hearing of Appeal before the Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge need not now refer the matter back to the Estate Officer for hearing in pursuance of the contention urged by the petitioner before him earlier in the Appeal Memo. But he should himself adjudicate on the claim and decide the amount of dues. With these directions, the writ petition is disposed of and Rules is made absolute. Rule made absolute. Rule made absolute. *****