JUDGEMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J. :---The only question which is involved in this writ petition is as to whether the authorised officer appointed under the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (hereinafter called the Act) can pass an order evicting a tenant from a building on the application of the landlord. 2. The petitioner challenges in this writ petition an order passed by the Deputy Collector, Panaji Sub-Division, Panaji, Goa who was appointed as an Authorised Officer under the provisions of the Act whereby the eviction of the petitioner was ordered from the premises bearing Municipal No. E-2 (old) and House No. 5 (new) under Chalta No. 18 of P.T. Sheet No. 106 City Survey Panaji which is in the North half of the first floor of the building consisting of one verandah, one entrance, one drawing room, two rooms, bath room and kitchen. In the other portion of the building the respondent No. 3 is admittedly staying, who is the owner of the suit building. 3. The short facts of the case is that the house in question was requisitioned by the Government under the provisions of section 6 of the Act and the same has been allotted to a Government servant the late Anand D. Mahatme who was serving in the Sale Tax Department in the Government of Goa vide Exh. A dated 14-12-1973. Shri Anand Mahatme retired from Government service in the year 1978 but he continued to stay in the premises paying rent to the third respondent's father Shri Leandro Gonsalves. The said Leandro Gonsalves gifted the suit house to the third respondent by Gift Deed dated 25-11-1991. In the meantime Anand Mahatme died and his legal representatives, the petitioners, continued to occupy the house. After the death of Anand Mahatme, the landlord used to collect the rent from the petitioners. The fact of gifting away the suit house in favour of respondent No. 3, has been duly informed to the late father of the petitioner by letter dated 25-11-1991 (Exh. B colly. in this writ petition at page 23) and the receipts of having paid the rent issued by the respondent is at pages 25, 27 and 29 which go to show that the rent was being paid till January, 1992. B colly. in this writ petition at page 23) and the receipts of having paid the rent issued by the respondent is at pages 25, 27 and 29 which go to show that the rent was being paid till January, 1992. All these facts make it clear that the respondent No. 3 and the petitioner are treating themselves as landlord and tenants respectively for all practical purposes. The respondent has then made an application to the Authorised Officer, respondent No. 2, purported to be under section 5 of the Act and requested the release of the building for his own use as the present premises where he now lives is not sufficient for the requirement of his family. During the pendency of the proceedings the Government of Goa also has been impleaded before the Authorised Officer in the proceedings. Notice has been issued by the Authorised Officer to the petitioners and the petitioners resisted the application. Ultimately the Authorised Officer passed an order (Exh. D) dated 7-4-1993 directing the petitioners to put the building in question in possession of the respondent. The order concludes thus :--- "Respondent No. 1 is directed to vacate the suit premises and hand over the vacant possession of the same to the Applicant within one month of the date of this order." The said order was challenged by the petitioners before the Administrative Tribunal by way of revision as Eviction Revision Application No. 30/93. The Administrative Tribunal in its order dated 29-7-1994 rejected the revision and directed the petitioners to vacate the premises within 15 days from the date of the order. This order is at Exh. F at page 133 of the writ petition. These two orders are now, as indicated above, under challenge before me. The petitioners contended inter alia that the Authorised Officer has no power to order eviction of the petitioners under the provisions of the Act. 4. Counsel for the respondent defended the orders under challenge contending that the petitioners have no locus standi; that they have no legal ground to continue in occupation of the building after their father, a Government servant retired from service and also under section 5 of the Act the Authorised Officer is fully authorised to put the landlord in possession of the house. To substantiate this argument he has cited two decisions of the Madras High Court in (Menghraj Thakurdas v. The Accommodation Controller, Madras)1, reported in A.I.R. 1966 Madras 172 and (M.S. Shaik Mohamad Shah v. State of Madras and others)2, A.I.R. 1966 Madras 454. With great respect the above two decisions are not applicable to the facts of this case. In these two decisions which are on facts can be easily distinguishable. In the decision reported in A.I.R. 1966 Madras 172 is a petition filed by the landlord against the Government for releasing the building. The main challenge in that writ petition was the allotment order itself. The case cited in A.I.R. 1966 Madras 454 is filed by the allottee himself against the cancellation of the allotment. Therefore the dictum laid down in the two decisions cannot be made applicable to the facts of this case. This case has to be examined on the basis of the peculiar facts position prevailing therein. 5. Before we go into the facts of this case let us examine the role of the Authorised Officer in the context of the scheme of the Act. Chapter II of the Act deals with the control of letting. Section 3(d). Nothing in this Act shall apply as against the Government to any tenancy or other like relationship created by a grant from the Government in respect of a building, the possession of which has been taken over under section 6. Section 4. Notice of vacancy.---(1) Every landlord shall, within ten days after a building becomes vacant by his ceasing to occupy it or by termination of a tenancy, or by eviction of a tenant, or otherwise, give notice of the vacancy to the Authorised Officer. (2) Every such notice shall be given in such manner, and shall contain such particulars, as may be prescribed. Section 6. (2) Every such notice shall be given in such manner, and shall contain such particulars, as may be prescribed. Section 6. Requisitioning of building.---(1) Within fifteen days of receipt by the Authorised Officer, of the notice under sub-section (1) of section 4, or sub-section (2) of section 5, the Authorised Officer, may, if he is of the opinion that the building is required for the purpose of the Government or of any local authority or of any public institution under the control of the Government or for the occupation of any officer or employee of the Government or a local authority, issue an order in the prescribed form giving intimation to that effect to the landlord, and calling upon the landlord to hand over possession of the building to him or any other officer empowered by him for this purpose on a date to be specified by him in this behalf in the said order, or on any other later date, as may be specified by him. (2) (a) On receipt of the order issued under sub-section (1), the landlord shall deliver vacant possession of the building to the Authorised Officer or any officer empowered by him for this purpose. (b) If the landlord fails to deliver the possession on the date so specified, the Authorised Officer or any other officer empowered by him in this behalf may take possession of the building. Section 7. Landlord's right to occupy.---If, within fifteen days of the receipt by the Authorised Officer of a notice under sub-section (1) of section 4 or sub-section (2) of section 5, the Authorised Officer does not intimate to the landlord in writing that the building is required for any of the purposes specified in sub-section (1) of section 6, the landlord shall be at liberty to let the building to any tenant or to occupy it himself. Section 9. Effect of failure to give notice and prohibition of letting.---Notwithstanding the fact that a landlord has failed to give intimation to the Authorised Officer as required by sub-section (1) of section 4, or sub-section (2) of section 5. Section 9. Effect of failure to give notice and prohibition of letting.---Notwithstanding the fact that a landlord has failed to give intimation to the Authorised Officer as required by sub-section (1) of section 4, or sub-section (2) of section 5. Administrator or the Authorised Officer may, if the building is required for any of the purposes specified in sub-section (1) of section 6 at any time, give intimation to the landlord that the building is so required and thereupon the provisions of this Chapter shall apply to such building as if the requisite notice had been given: Provided that such intimation shall not affect any liability of the landlord for any penalty to which he may be subject by reason of his omission to give the notice. Section 10. Occupation without giving notice of vacancy void.---Where a landlord fails to give intimation to the Authorised Officer as required by sub-section (1) of section 4 or sub-section (2) of section 5 and occupies the building himself or lets it out to a tenant or otherwise allows it to be occupied by some other person, the said occupation of the building by the landlord or the tenant or other person shall be deemed to be void. On a close scrutiny of these provisions we can see that the Authorised Officer's role mainly confined to requisition the building for the guaranteed purpose and allot the vacant house to Government servant. When the rental houses are found available, Government has to help the Government servants to find out the houses by recovering the provisions of the Act. Therefore under the Scheme of the Act it can be seen that whenever a vacancy arises in a rental premises the landlord is obliged to give notice of vacancy to the Authorised Officer. On receipt of such notice of vacancy the Authorised Officer will allot the same to a Government servant. There are provisions for fixing the rent also by the Authorised Officer. On receipt of such notice of vacancy the Authorised Officer will allot the same to a Government servant. There are provisions for fixing the rent also by the Authorised Officer. Sub-section (5) of section 6 says: "The Authorised Officer may, by order in writing, allot the building for the purpose of which it was taken over and the allottee shall hold it subject to such terms and conditions as may be specified in the allotment order." Therefore there is no quarrel for the proposition that once the house is allotted by the Authorised Officer the Government has become tenant who is liable to pay rent to the landlord either directly or to the person to whom the house is allotted as per the terms and conditions of the allotment. Therefore the position of the allottee is that of a licensee under the Government. Government can at any time terminate that licence. But the tenancy with the Government landlord cannot be terminated by the landlord unless an order of release has been passed by the Authorised Officer under section 5 of the Act. Therefore it can be seen the tenancy in respect of the house occupied by Government servants can be put an end to only by a release order passed by the Authorised Officer and in such an event it implies the Government does not require the house for its purpose any further. Government cannot induct a private person after use of the house for Government purpose is over, without consent and knowledge of the landlord. Therefore examining the scheme of the Act, particularly, the entire Chapter II one can easily come to a conclusion that the Chapter deals only with the relationship of Government on one side as tenant and the landlord on the other side. The allottee does not come in the picture at all in this transaction or vis-a-vis any dispute arising between the Government and the landlord. Government servant occupying the house is only to pay rent as directed by the Authorised Officer. 6. But here in this case after the retirement of the Government servant the possession did not revert back to the Government to allot it to any other Government servant. Nor the landlord or tenant did not inform the Government about the retirement. Government also did not inform the tenants to vacate the premises nor does it release the building back to landlord. Nor the landlord or tenant did not inform the Government about the retirement. Government also did not inform the tenants to vacate the premises nor does it release the building back to landlord. On the other hand, not only these two things did not occur; but, after the retirement the tenant was permitted by the landlord to continue to occupy the house. After retirement of the petitioner's father, he was directly paying rent to the landlord and the landlord without any doubt was receiving the rents. This implies that there is a cessation of possession of the building by the Government being the tenant. Another thing also occurred in this case. The original tenant died. The original landlord assigned his right by way of gift to his son. The new landlord and the new tenant recognised each other as tenant and landlord. New tenants pay rent to the landlord who receive it with no hesitation. Therefore for all legal and practical purposes it should be presumed that the tenancy with the Government has been ceased and tenancy between the petitioners who are in actual possession of the building and the landlord is created and continued after the retirement of the Government servant in this case. As submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in such circumstances the Authorised Officer has no power to direct the petitioners to put possession of the building back to the landlord. 7. Considering the scheme of the Act the power of eviction of a tenant by the landlord is only on the grounds as enumerated in the Act. Here the respondent required the building for his own occupation which is a ground under which an eviction can be ordered by the Rent Controller who is invested with the powers to do so. But Authorised Officer is not authorised to pass such order of eviction on that ground. The Authorised Officer can only act on behalf of the Government as its agent. The Authorised Officer is appointed by the Government through whom the premises required for the use of Government could be requisitioned. More than that no responsibility is invested in the Authorised Officer by the statute. There are sufficient indications by express provisions or by necessary implication that the Authorised Officer has not been entrusted with the eviction of tenant from its occupation. More than that no responsibility is invested in the Authorised Officer by the statute. There are sufficient indications by express provisions or by necessary implication that the Authorised Officer has not been entrusted with the eviction of tenant from its occupation. In fact, the Authorised Officer has not been entrusted with any adjudication of any dispute between the tenant and landlord. As indicated earlier he can only adjudicate dispute between the Government as tenant on one hand and the landlord on the other hand. The legislative intention is so clear as to exclude the Authorised Officer from the function of eviction of tenant. Even though he is an Officer appointed under section 41 of the Act he is not given any judicial power to adjudicate upon any matter touching the right of parties. Section 43 of the Act gives a sufficient indication to this effect. It prescribes the powers of the Rent Controller, the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Board and these authorities are vested with all powers of a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure. Section 44 prescribes the procedure to be followed by the authority in all inquiries which shall be such as may be prescribed by the Rules. Sub-section (2) of section 44 clearly indicates that from every decision made or order passed under this Act shall be recorded in the form of an order which shall state the reasons. It implies that no judicial decision is called upon to be taken by the Authorised Officer under the Act except under section 31. The only decision of the Authorised Officer which is made appealable is the one taken under section 31 of the Act and that section 31 is included under Chapter V, but not under Chapter II. So under Chapter II no judicial decision is expected to be taken by the Authorised Officer. Section 56 bars the jurisdiction of the Civil Court, with regard to the questions which are to be settled, determined or dealt with. If such question arises under this Act it could be settled, determined and dealt with by the Controller, the Rent Tribunal and Appellate Board, the Administrative Tribunal or the Administrator. Section 58(2)(a) says that the procedure to be followed and the powers that may be exercised by the Controller, Rent Tribunal, Appellate Board and Administrative Tribunal is in the performance of their functions under this Act. Section 58(2)(a) says that the procedure to be followed and the powers that may be exercised by the Controller, Rent Tribunal, Appellate Board and Administrative Tribunal is in the performance of their functions under this Act. Significantly functions of the Authorised Officer have been omitted here. Therefore, it is amply clear from the scheme of the Act no judicial or quasi judicial power is vested under Chapter II in the Authorised Officer. He was acting only as an agent of the Government. Any order therefore, passed by the Authorised Officer, having the effect of dispossession of a tenant or dispossession of an unauthorised person occupying a house where the Act extends has to be treated as one passed without jurisdiction and therefore liable to be quashed. The ground on which the respondent No. 3 stated that he required the premises may be a good ground for him to move before the Rent Controller for recovery of possession of the building. But the question here is can the Authorised Officer exercise such power without authority of law. My answer is an emphatic 'No'. I am not hesitant to hold that under Chapter II of the Act the Authorised Officer has no power to pass an order dispossessing the tenant and even ousting the trespasser from the house. The learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that if at all the petitioners are to be ousted from the house it should be by way of recoursing to the provisions of the Goa Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1988. In view of my finding earlier entered the relationship of the Government with the landlord has ceased to exist. In the present conduct the said Act is not applicable. If at all the respondent wants to evict his tenant he can do so only by recoursing to the provisions of the Act as mentioned in Chapter V of the Act. In the result, I set aside the order impugned in this writ petition namely the order passed by the Authorised Officer (Exh. D at page 69) and the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal (Exh. F at page 133). The writ petition is allowed. The order passed by the Authorised Officer and the Administrative Tribunal are quashed. In the circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Petition allowed.