Judgment Heard Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Shri J.E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. 2. The above Petition challenges the Orders dismissing an application for temporary injunction passed by the Courts below whereby in a suit filed by the Petitioner for declaration that the Eviction Proceedings bearing No.RENT/ADC/01/97 and the Judgment in eviction obtained in the said proceedings being Order dated 12.09.2008, is vitiated by fraud and is null and void abinitio viz a viz the Petitioner herein. The Petitioner has also sought for relief to the effect that the Petitioner is not liable to be vacated from the suit premises on the basis of the said Judgment. Pending the hearing of the said suit, the said application came to be filed for temporary injunction restraining the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 from acting upon the Judgment of eviction passed in the said proceedings. 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that a Lease Agreement was entered on 07.02.1975, at Curchorem, between Mr. Durganand Ramnath Sinai Sawardekar and Mr. Eustaquio Dias, resident of Panaji, and late husband of the Petitioner Shri Venceslau Gonsalves. The said husband of the Petitioner had taken on lease the house/bungalow consisting of the ground, first and second floor, situated at Panaji, within the Municipal area of Panaji City on monthly basis. It is further the case of the Petitioner that by the said Lease Agreement dated 07.02.1975 the premises were taken on lease by Eustaquio Dias and his wife along with the Petitioner and her husband. It is further her case that rent was to be paid at the residence of the lessor. It is further the case of the Petitioner that the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 who were the landlords, filed an eviction proceedings against the Respondent Nos.6 to 8 respectively without making the Petitioner as a party to such proceedings. It is further the case of the Petitioner that the Landlords/Respondent Nos.1 to 5, deliberately did not make the Petitioner a party and on account of such fraud, obtained the Order for eviction. It is further the case of the Petitioner that the husband of the Petitioner expired somewhere on 28.10.2003 and that upon his death, the Petitioner was also not brought on record whereas only Respondent no.6, who is her son, was brought on record. It is further the case of the Petitioner that the husband of the Petitioner expired somewhere on 28.10.2003 and that upon his death, the Petitioner was also not brought on record whereas only Respondent no.6, who is her son, was brought on record. It is further her case that the relation between the Petitioner and her son are estranged and that the whole proceedings on the part of the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 were fraudulently which deprive the Petitioner to put up her defence. For the other reasons stated in the plaint, the Petitioner has filed the suit seeking declaration as mentioned herein above as well as an application for temporary injunction as mentioned above. 4. Respondent Nos.1 to 5 resisted the suit by disputing the contentions of the Petitioner. It was their case that the Agreement was entered into with the husband of the Petitioner and Eustaquio Dias, who were carrying out business activities in the suit premises and that there was no fraud committed by the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. It is their case that the suit has been filed in collusion with Respondent no.6 only to deprive the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 the fruits of the eviction proceedings which were passed in their favour. 5. The learned Civil Judge, Senior Division at Panaji, by Order dated 27.12.2011, dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Being aggrieved by the said Order, the Petitioner preferred MCA bearing No.2/2012, before the Adhoc District Judge, North Goa, Panaji, which came to be dismissed by Judgment dated 21.01.2012. The learned Appellate Judge, whilst passing the impugned Order, has appreciated the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion that the Petitioner has failed to establish, prima facie, any right to the suit property. The learned Judge further at para 13 of the impugned Judgment doubted the claim of the Petitioner that she came to know about the eviction proceedings only when the pasting of the notice was effected on the outer door of the disputed premises. Learned Judge further came to the conclusion that the Petitioner, prima facie, failed to show any case in her favour and for the other reasons stated in the impugned Order, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner. 6. Being aggrieved by the said Orders, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition. 7. Learned Judge further came to the conclusion that the Petitioner, prima facie, failed to show any case in her favour and for the other reasons stated in the impugned Order, dismissed the Appeal filed by the Petitioner. 6. Being aggrieved by the said Orders, the Petitioner has filed the present Petition. 7. Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, has assailed the impugned Orders essentially on the ground that the Petitioner was also a tenant along with her husband of the suit premises and, according to him, the Petitioner ought to have been made a party to the eviction proceedings initiated by the Respondent Nos.1 to 5. Learned Counsel further pointed out that though the son of the Petitioner was brought on record upon the death of the father of the Petitioner, nevertheless, in view of the definition of "tenant" in the Rent Control Act, upon the death of the tenant, his wife is also included therein. The learned Counsel further pointed out that it was incumbent upon the learned Rent Controller to hold an inquiry under Rule 12 of the Goa Rent Control Rules in case there was any dispute as to who is the legal representative of the deceased-tenant. Learned Counsel further pointed out that the relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent no.6 is estranged and, as such, the whole proceedings initiated by Respondent Nos.1 to 5 have been initiated by fraud in collusion with the Respondent no.6. Learned Counsel has taken me through the impugned Judgments and pointed out that the Petitioner has established, prima facie, that she has a right to the suit premises and, as such, the learned Judge erroneously dismissed the application for temporary injunction. 8. On the other hand, Shri J. E. Coelho Pereira, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5, has supported the impugned Judgments. Learned Senior Counsel has pointed out that the deceased husband of the Petitioner was shown as partner in the partnership firm which was carrying on business in the suit premises. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the business alleged to be run in the suit premises was in the name and style of 'M/s. La Vista Lodge' and as such Petitioner's claiming any right to the suit premises does not arise at all. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the business alleged to be run in the suit premises was in the name and style of 'M/s. La Vista Lodge' and as such Petitioner's claiming any right to the suit premises does not arise at all. Learned Senior Counsel after taking me through the Partnership Deed, points out that the terms therein contemplate that in case of death of the partner, the legal representatives shall unanimously decide as to who should run the partnership business and, as such, considering that the Respondent no.6 was brought on record at the instance of Respondent no.7, itself discloses that the legal representatives unanimously agreed to allow the Respondent no.6 to carry out the business of the said partnership firm. Learned Senior Counsel further pointed out that the whole plaint filed by the Petitioner is a collusive exercise of the Respondent no.6 only to deprive the fruits of the eviction proceedings. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon the Judgment of the Apex Court dated 10.05.2011 passed in (2011) 6 S.C.C. 385 , in the case of Atma Ram Builders Private Limited. vs. A.K. Tuli & Ors. 9. Having heard the learned Counsel and on perusal of the record, I find that both the Courts below on the basis of the appreciation of evidence, have come to the conclusion that the Petition has prima facie failed to establish any right to the suit premises. The records further reveal that the deceased husband of the Petitioner has been shown as carrying on business in the suit premises in the name and style of La Vista Lodge. Hence, the question of Petitioner having any right to such activities of her deceased husband, prima facie, would not arise. There is nothing on record produced by the Petitioner, prima facie, which would disclose that the Petitioner was also running any business in the suit premises. Apart from that, upon the death of the said Venceslau Dias, the Respondent no.6, who is the son of the Petitioner, was brought on record. The Petitioner and her son are alleged to be living in the same house but, however, the contention of Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, to the effect that their relationship is estranged, prima facie, has not been established. The Petitioner and her son are alleged to be living in the same house but, however, the contention of Shri Rohit Bras De Sa, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, to the effect that their relationship is estranged, prima facie, has not been established. The Respondent Nos.1 to 5 have also pleaded in the reply that the address in the cause title of the Respondent no.6 is the same as that of the Petitioner which is otherwise disputed by the Respondent no.6. On the contrary, the Lower Appellate Court, whilst passing the impugned Order has found that the copies of the earlier proceedings produced by the Petitioner on record, are from the records of the Respondent no.6. This, prima facie, establishes that the Petitioner has failed to establish that the Orders passed in the eviction proceedings have been obtained by the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 by fraud. There is nothing on record prima facie to establish that the Respondents have committed a fraud to deprive the Petitioner the alleged right to the suit premises. The Courts below have come to the conclusion that the Petitioner has no right to the suit premises. The records further reveal that the Respondent no.6 was brought on record after Respondent Nos.1 to 5 filed an application before the learned Rent Controller that they were not aware of the names of the legal representatives of the husband of the Petitioners. The name of the Respondent no.6 was stated to have been furnished by the Respondent No.7. 10. Taking note of the clause in the Partnership Deep which was pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel, Shri J.E. Coelho Pereira, I find that the Petitioner has failed to establish, prima facie, that she had any subsisting right to any business activities carried out in the suit premises. 11. The Apex Court in the said Judgment in the case of Atma Ram Builders Private Limited. vs. A.K. Tuli & Ors. 11. The Apex Court in the said Judgment in the case of Atma Ram Builders Private Limited. vs. A.K. Tuli & Ors. (supra) has held at para 4 thus : "It is deeply regrettable that in our country often litigations between the landlord and the tenant are found up to the stage of the Supreme Court and when the tenant loses in this Court then he starts a second innings through someone claiming to be a co-tenant or as a sub-tenant or in some other capacity and in the second round of litigation the matter remains pending for years and the landlord cannot get possession despite the order of this Court. The time has come that this malpractice must now be stopped effectively." Considering the said Judgment of the Apex Court, the conduct of the Petitioner in filing the suit and the application for temporary injunction and failing to establish prima facie her alleged claim over the suit property is to be deprecated. The whole exercise appears to be only to scuttle the Order of eviction passed in the said proceedings by raising untenable contentions. 12. Apart from that, the learned Single Judge of this Court in the Judgment reported in 1993 (1) Current Civil Cases 85 in the case of Smt. Chhaya Visyhnu Sadavarte vs. Smt. Indubai & Ors. has held at para 3 thus : "3.... It is enough to point out that the suit was filed against the present petitioner's father as far back as in 1971. The petitioner's father died in 1974. The petitioner claims to be running her father's business of shop/godown which is in question. The suit was in respect of that very same shop/godown. The plaintiff's mother, brothers and sister were already brought on record in the suit. All these circumstances indicate that the petitioner was quite aware of the proceedings. If she felt that her interests were not properly represented by her mother, brothers and sister who had been brought on record as defendants in the suit then she would have approached the Court to be made a party to that suit. It is in these circumstances that the learned Civil Judge rightly concluded that the petitioner considered that her interests were properly looked after by her mother, brothers and sister who were brought on record as defendants in he suit. It is in these circumstances that the learned Civil Judge rightly concluded that the petitioner considered that her interests were properly looked after by her mother, brothers and sister who were brought on record as defendants in he suit. The learned Civil Judge therefore rightly concluded that, although the petitioner had not been brought on record as defendant in the suit, she was as much bound by the decree passed in the suit as those who had already been brought on record in the suit. No interference is called for in the impugned orders and hence this Writ Petition is dismissed with costs." Considering the ratio laid down by the learned Single Judge of this Court and as the Respondent no.6 was party to the earlier proceedings being the son of the Petitioner, I find that the Courts below have rightly rejected the application for temporary injunction filed by the Petitioner. 13. As such, taking note of the findings arrived at by the Court below are, prima facie they shall not influence the Court whilst disposing the suit on merits. 14. In view of the above, I find no merit in the above Petition, which stands accordingly dismissed.