JUDGMENT F.M. Reis, J.- Heard Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Shri V.P. Thali learned Counsel appearing for the respondents No. 2 to 8. 2. Rule, Heard forthwith with the consent of the learned Counsel. 3. Shri V.P. Thali learned Counsel waives service on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 8. 4. The above petition challenges the order passed by the learned Rent Controller and Deputy Collector dated 16/08/1999 as well as the judgment passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal dated 02/09/2010 in Eviction Appeal No. 59/1999. 5. Briefly, the facts of the case as stated by the petitioners are that the petitioners are the tenants in respect of the premises bearing H.No. 80 and appurtenant land situated in the property bearing Chalta Nos. 25 and 34 of P.T. sheet No. 43 of City Survey Panaji. admeasuring an area of 241 square metres. It is the contention of the petitioners that the petitioner No.1 has been conducting business in the said premises in the name and style of 'Jose Bar & Restaurant'. 6. Respondents No. 1 to 8 filed the Eviction application No. 80/1990 under Section 30 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1968 before the Additional Rent Controller, North Goa at Panaji for recovery of possession of the said premises for the purpose of reconstruction of the building. 7. The petitioners opposed the said application for delivery of possession of the said premises to the respondents. After holding an inquiry and recording of evidence. the Additional Rent Controller by judgment and order dated 16/08/1999 allowed the application filed by the respondents thereby directing the petitioners to hand over the vacant and peaceful possession of the said premises bearing Chalta No. 25 of P.T. sheet No. 43 to the respondents No. 1 to 7 on or before 30/09/1999 and the respondents were directed to provide for alternate premises to all the petitioners jointly, free of consideration and within 500 metres from the tenanted premises within a period of 15 days from the date of vacating the possession of the tenanted premises by the petitioners. The respondents were further directed to hand over the rebuilt tenanted premises admeasuring 101 square metres of plinth area to all the petitioners jointly at the same place, as far as possible where the tenanted premises were situated and before the expiry of two years from the date of handing over such possession. The respondents were also directed to pay costs of Rs. 1,000/- to the petitioners. 8. Being aggrieved by the said judgment passed by the Rent Controller, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Administrative Tribunal. The learned Tribunal after hearing the arguments of the petitioners and the reply filed by the respondents posted the matter for judgment on 05/06/2006. Ultimately, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal preferred by the petitioners by judgment and order dated 02/09/2010 dismissing the eviction application filed by the petitioners. Being aggrieved by the said orders passed by the Authorities below the petitioners have preferred the above Writ Petition. 9. Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners has raised three contentions in support of the above petition. The first contention is that the Tribunal was not justified to partly hear the final arguments on 05/06/2006 and dispose of the eviction appeal only in September 2010 which according to the learned Counsel is a procedure which is unheard of in law. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the advocate for the petitioners was heard originally and thereafter the matter was posted for written arguments on the part of the respondents and such written arguments came to be filed on behalf of the respondents and the matter was thereafter posted for rejoinder to the written arguments by the petitioners. The learned Counsel further pointed out that accordingly, such written arguments came to be filed by the petitioners' advocate and subsequently, from time to time the matter was fixed for judgment. The learned Counsel further pointed out that there is no justification for the Tribunal to pass the impugned judgment after a gap of nearly three years which itself vitiates the impugned judgment passed by the Tribunal. 10. The next contention of Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the respondents have not shown any bonafides in their claim to seek for eviction of the petitioners for the purpose of reconstruction. 10. The next contention of Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that the respondents have not shown any bonafides in their claim to seek for eviction of the petitioners for the purpose of reconstruction. The learned Counsel has pointed out that before seeking the eviction of the petitioners for reconstructing the tenanted premises. it was incumbent upon the petitioners to show that they are tenants of the said premises. The learned Counsel further pointed out that in the present case the evidence discloses that the whole exercise on the part of the respondents is to seek premises only for commercial purpose. The learned Counsel further pointed out that this ground cannot be a justification to direct the petitioners to vacate the tenanted premises for the purpose of reconstruction. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Authorities below have not considered the said aspect whilst passing the impugned judgment. 11. The third contention of Shri Nigel Da Costa. learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners is that, the Authorities below have not considered that any alternate premises has not been made available by the respondents before the petitioners were asked to vacate the tenanted premises. The learned counsel further, pointed out that according to the petitioners the area being occupied by them was 141 square metres whereas 'the Authorities below have directed that only an area of 101 square metres of plinth area be given to the petitioners. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the tenanted premises is an independent premises and. as such, according to the learned Counsel the question of taking note of the fact that the property adjoining to the tenanted premises has already been demarcated and construction has already been put up, show that the requirements of the respondents are not bona fide. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment and pointed out that the Authorities below have not passed the impugned judgment after considering the material on record and/or relevant provisions of the Rent Control Act. The leaned Counsel, as such, submits that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 12. On the other hand. Shri V.P. Thali, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. The leaned Counsel, as such, submits that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside. 12. On the other hand. Shri V.P. Thali, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has supported the impugned judgment. With regard to the submission of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Counsel has pointed out from the Roznama of the Tribunal that on 14/1 /2009 the matter was fixed for clarification and/or rehearing of the appeal preferred by the petitioners. The learned Counsel thereafter has taken me through the Roznama of 28/01/2009 and pointed out that on the said date all the parties were present and informed the Court that they agree that the matter be decided on the documents and the written notes submitted by both the parties. The learned Counsel further pointed out that though an opportunity was given to, the petitioners to argue the appeal afresh nevertheless the petitioners did not avail of such opportunity and. as such. it was not open to the petitioners to raise such arguments before this Court. The learned Counsel has thereafter pointed out that on 22/06/2010 the parties were given an opportunity to reargue the matter in view of the directions of this Court and the matter was fixed on 21/07/2010. On the said date i.e. 21/07/2010. it was pointed out by the parties who were present that they have filed written submissions covering all the points raised in the oral arguments and therefore the matter may be decided considering the said arguments already filed. It was further pointed out by the learned Counsel and the parties present that they do not want to reargue the mater. Consequently, the matter was posted for judgment on 04/08/2010. Ultimately, the impugned judgment came to be passed on 02/09/2010. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that the petitioners while filing the above petition has not made any averments to dispute the correctness of the records in the said Roznama as it was only when it was brought to the notice of the Court by the respondents that the petitioners chose to amend the Writ petition to make some allegations disputing the correctness of the said averments. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the conduct of the petitioners in not disclosing the said aspect in the original petition itself disentitles them from raising any such contentions before this Court. 13. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the conduct of the petitioners in not disclosing the said aspect in the original petition itself disentitles them from raising any such contentions before this Court. 13. With regard to the second contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. Shri Thali, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that it is an admitted fact that besides the suit tenanted premises, other adjoining premises were also given to different tenants. The learned counsel has further pointed out that as far as remaining tenants are concerned, all of them have vacated the premises and consequently, the respondents have already erected a new construction at places where the said premises were located. The delay in vacating the suit premises has caused great prejudice to the respondents as according to him the respondents were forced to accommodate the tenants in the adjoining new premises. The learned Counsel further pointed out that allowing the tenanted premises which are in a dilapidated condition in the vicinity of the other buildings which have been erected by the respondents adjoining the suit premises would cause irreparable loss to the respondents besides posing a danger to the other occupants of the premises in the adjoining buildings. The learned Counsel further pointed out that even assuming the respondents are seeking to demolish the suit premises for the commercial purpose. it is not open to the petitioners to refuse to vacate the tenanted premises on that count. The learned Counsel has further pointed out that the only right reserved to the petitioners under the provisions of the Rent Control Act is that the respondents should provide the petitioners with an alternative accommodation in the new building which is intended to be put up by the respondents. Apart from that other obligation of the respondents reserved under the Rent Control Act is that during the interregnum, the respondents should provide the petitioners with a suitable accommodation to carry out their business activity and/or their residential premises within the radius of 500 metres from the disputed premises. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment passed by the Authorities below and pointed out that the Authorities below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the respondents are entitled for the relief sought in the application. 14. The learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned judgment passed by the Authorities below and pointed out that the Authorities below have rightly appreciated the evidence on record and come to the conclusion that the respondents are entitled for the relief sought in the application. 14. With regard to the third contention of the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners, Shri Thali, has pointed out that the Courts have come to the conclusion that the area occupied by the petitioners is 101 square metres. The learned Counsel further pointed out that this Court in the present Writ Petition cannot reappreciate the evidence on record to come to any contrary finding. Apart from that the petitioners have not shown any perversity in the said findings. The learned Counsel further pointed out that considering the said facts and circumstances of the case, no case is made out for interference in the impugned judgment. With regard to the contention of the petitioners to the' effect, that the plans which have been sanctioned have already lapsed. Shri Thali, has pointed out that unless and until the permissions from the statutory Authorities are obtained for the purpose of putting up a new construction, the question of seeking vacant possession of the petitioners would not arise. The learned Counsel further pointed out that only after obtaining all the said requisite permissions, the respondents would seek occupation of the tenanted suit premises. With regard to the contention of Shri Nigel da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners in respect of the alternative accommodation during the period of construction. the learned Counsel has pointed out that the respondents would provide such accommodation and in any event the provisions of the Rent Control Act make specific safeguard to ensure that in case such premises are not given to the tenants, the landlord/respondents would be liable to pay compensation to the petitioners during the interregnum period. The learned Counsel further pointed out that the contention' of Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners that the affidavit given by the respondents is not sufficient. Shri Thali submits that the respondents would file an additional affidavit to the effect that they would hand over the vacant possession of the new premises after reconstruction in accordance with the provisions of law. Shri Thali submits that the respondents would file an additional affidavit to the effect that they would hand over the vacant possession of the new premises after reconstruction in accordance with the provisions of law. The learned Counsel, as such, submits that no interference is called for in the impugned order. Shrt Thali, the learned Counsel appearing of the respondents has pointed out that the petitioners have not shown any error in the findings of the learned Judge as no arguments were advanced by the petitioners have not been considered by the learned Judge. 15. I have duly considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties and also gone through the records and with the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. I have perused the material adduced by the parties before the authorities below. 16. With regard to the first contention of Shrt Nigel Da Costa Frias, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners to the effect that the judgment was delivered after a long gap of time by the learned Tribunal without giving a hearing of the matter afresh. I find on perusal of the Roznama of the learned Tribunal, that an opportunity was given to the petitioners to advance oral arguments. On perusal of the Roznama. I find that on 22.06.2010, both the parties were given opportunities to re-argue in view of the judgment of this Court and accordingly, the matter was posted on 21.07.2010. On 21.07.2010, the parties were present and stated that they have filed written submissions covering all the points raised in the oral arguments and therefore, the matter may be decided considering the said arguments already on record. The matter was thereafter posted and fixed for judgment on 04.08.2010. On bare perusal of the said Roznama. it cannot be said that the petitioners were not given an opportunity to advance oral submissions. There is no dispute raised by the petitioners with regard to the correctness of the noting of the said Roznama and in any event in case any such records are not correct. it was incumbent upon the petitioners to get them accordingly rectified before the concerned Court. There is no dispute raised by the petitioners with regard to the correctness of the noting of the said Roznama and in any event in case any such records are not correct. it was incumbent upon the petitioners to get them accordingly rectified before the concerned Court. It is not possible as such to disbelieve the records in the Roznama and as such, the contention of Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias that an opportunity was not given to the petitioners to advance submission cannot be accepted. 17. With regard to the next contention of Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias to the effect that the whole exercise on the part of the respondents is to do commercial business in respect of the tenanted premises and as such bona fides have not been established, the learned Tribunal has assessed the material and has come to the conclusion that the bona fides of the respondents have been established. It would be appropriate to take note of the observations of the Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2004) 5 SCC 241 in the case of P.S. Pareed Kaka and others v. Shafee Ahmed Saheb, wherein the Apex Court has observed at paras 11 and 12 thus: "11. Law is well settled on this aspect. Even if the building is in a good condition, if it is not suitable for the requirement of the landlord, he can always demolish even a good building and put up a new building to suit his requirements. It is not necessary for the landlord to prove that the condition of the building is such that it requires immediate demolition particularly when the premises is required by the landlord. Therefore, it has to be held that the finding of the trial Court cannot be sustained and the High Court on re-appreciation of the evidence, rightly so, held that the landlord has established that his need for all the four petition schedule premises is bonafide and reasonable. 12. In R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder v. Venkatesha Gupta, one of us (R.C. Lahoti, J.) speaking for the Bench while dealing with a similar provision under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act has observed as under: (SCC paras 3, 4, 12 & 13) The building in question was located in a busy business locality. It was 30 years old constructed of stones, bricks and mortar. It was 30 years old constructed of stones, bricks and mortar. The roof was partially of cement sheets and partially of tiles. The building occupied only a portion of the landlord's total land. It was not dilapidated and damaged. The landlord to augment his income wanted to demolish and reconstruct new building on his entire land. The proposed new building was to be a double-storeyed modern building of cement concrete providing much more total accommodation than what is available. In such circumstances the offer of the tenant that they are prepared to pay the rent at the current rate, the one which the landlord expects on reconstruction could not be a ground to refuse eviction decree to the landlord." 18. In the present case, it is culled out from the records that the disputed premises are very old. The record also reveals that as far as the adjoining portion of the property is concerned, the respondents have already put up a new construction wherein tenants who were occupying the premises have evicted for such reconstruction. It is also not in dispute that the tenants were given re-occupation of the premises in the adjoining building put up by the respondents. All these inferences clearly disclose that the claim of the petitioners that the application filed by the respondents is not bonafide cannot be accepted. The landlord is always entitled to seek for reconstruction subject to compliance of the requirements in terms of the Rent Control Act for the purpose of carrying out reconstruction of an old premises. The need to demolishing the suit premises in occupation of the petitioners for the reasons stated herein above cannot be doubted. There is no question of doubting the bona fides of the respondents in this situation considering that the other structures in the same property have been demolished and reconstructed by the respondents. Just because by reconstructing the premises the value of the building may increase will not dilute the bona fides or the reasonableness of the claim put forward by the respondents even if in a given case a landlord requires to arrange for finance and make provisions for such repayment. This consideration cannot in any way affect the right of the respondents to seek the reconstruction of the suit structure in case the respondents comply with the requirements as provided under the Rent Control Act. This consideration cannot in any way affect the right of the respondents to seek the reconstruction of the suit structure in case the respondents comply with the requirements as provided under the Rent Control Act. As such, the findings of the Tribunal that the bona fides of the respondents have been established cannot be faulted. 19. With regard to the contention of Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias that the plans which have been approved have already lapsed. Shri Thali, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has pointed out that the respondents will not seek for possession of the petitioners from the disputed premises unless and until all the permissions are obtained from the statutory authorities for putting up a new construction. The Controller shall ensure that the petitioners are evicted from the tenanted premises only after the Controller is satisfied that all the permissions have been duly obtained from the concerned authorities by the respondents. As such, the apprehension of Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias on that count does not survive. 20. With regard to the next contention of Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias to the effect that the respondents have not furnished necessary undertaking. Shri Thali. learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the respondents have already furnished the undertaking and in case any further undertaking is required the respondents would willingly furnish any undertaking in terms of law. Hence, the Rent Controller shall ensure that the undertaking is obtained in terms of the Rent Control Act, in case it is so required before eviction of the petitioners from the disputed premises for the purpose of reconstruction. 21. With regard to the other apprehension of Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias, the learned counsel to the effect that the respondents have not made arrangement for alternate accommodation, on perusal of the judgment of the Rent Controller, adequate directions were given to the respondents to make provision for such alternate accommodation in terms of the Rent Control Act. Hence, unless and until the conditions are complied with the petitioners naturally would not be required to be evicted from the disputed premises for the purpose of allowing the respondents to carry out such reconstruction. Hence, the apprehension of Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias on that count also does not survive. 22. Subject to the observations made herein above. Hence, unless and until the conditions are complied with the petitioners naturally would not be required to be evicted from the disputed premises for the purpose of allowing the respondents to carry out such reconstruction. Hence, the apprehension of Shri Nigel Da Costa Frias on that count also does not survive. 22. Subject to the observations made herein above. I find that no case is made out by the petitioners for interference in the impugned judgment. 23. Subject to the above, the petition stands rejected. Rule stands disposed of accordingly. Petition rejected