JUDGMENT - N.J. PANDYA, J.:-Soon after the matter was admitted, steps were taken to serve the other side and with great cHficulties, the respondent No. 1 came to be served by 19-7-1997. So far as respondent No. 2 is concerned, previous efforts having failed, order for substituted service was passed and that is how he came to be served on 16-10-1997. 2. Inspite of the service, no one has been appearing for any one of the respondents. The question involved in the matter is whether the order of summary eviction should have been passed bythe Rent Controller and by the Administrative Tribunal in respect of the rented premises. As per say of the landlord, it happens to be an open piece of land having an area of about 100 sq. metres. 3. The petitioner was a tenant of the respondent No. 1, in respect of a built up premises, running hrs business and wanted further area of 100 sq. metres, near by the side of the workshop, so that he can store his goods and run his workshop more efficiently. 4. After getting the said open plot of land, the area of 100 sq. metres, the petitioner was to put up a shed on it and accordingly was to pay a rent agreed between the parties. 5. The moment the fact of rented premises being open piece of land is considered, the question wi'B arise whether the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 would apply or not ? On this will depend the question whether the Rent Controller, who passed the order of eviction would have jurisdiction to do so under section 32 of the said Act. 6. As per said section 32, the Rent Controller may order rent to be deposited and as a result of non-compliance of that order proceedings may be closed and summary eviction order be passed. That is exactly what has been done in the instant case. The matter taken before the Administrative Tribunal by the tenant could not bring about any change in the final order of the Rent Controller. 7. However, neither of the two authorities below have taken care to address themselves to the question raised by way of preliminary objection, as per written statement of petitioner, page 19, which was submitted in the month of September, 1984 before the Rent Controller. 8. 7. However, neither of the two authorities below have taken care to address themselves to the question raised by way of preliminary objection, as per written statement of petitioner, page 19, which was submitted in the month of September, 1984 before the Rent Controller. 8. The present petition is precisely on the question raised among other questions.As themattercouldbe disposed of only on this point, rest of the points raised in this petition need not be dealt with. 9. Going through the definition of word 'building' as per section 2, Clause (e) of the Act, it is quite clear that open plot of land does not fall within that definition. The power to be exercised under section 32 is connected to the rent outstanding in respect of the rented building or a portion thereof. As noted above, the rented premises may not happen to be a building, but it is only an open part of land. Clearly, therefore, the Rent Controller has no jurisdiction to pass such an order under section 32 of the Act. 10. The writ petition therefore, succeeds. The orders of the Administrative Tribunal, as well as the Rent Controller are set aside and the application for eviction is dismissed. Rule is made absolute accordingly Petition allowed.