JUDGMENT C V Bhadang, J. - Following points fall for determination in this petition: (i) Whether in view of Section 14 of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 ("Act" for short), the petitioners are joint tenants of the suit field,with respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and others of the suit field , having inherited tenancy rights from Manual Gonsalves (now deceased)? Or Whether respondent no1 is the exclusive tenant on the basis of the purported lease deed dt. 9th April 1994 ? (ii) Whether the purported lease-deed dated 9th April, 1994 executed by the third respondent in favour of the first respondent is illegal, being in breach of Section 10, 11 and 14 of the said Act ? 2. Agriculture land which is predominantly a paddy field, surveyed under No. 17 / 78 of village Amona, admeasuring 8550 sq. mts. is the subject matter of dispute, which is hereinafter referred to as the "suit field". 3. The suit field belongs to the third respondent Cabido da Se Premacial ("Cabido" for short) and was being cultivated by Manuel Gonsalves, the father of petitioner No. 1 Benedito Gonsalves (since deceased) and the first respondent Pedro Gonsalves. Manuel Gonsalves. died on 14th September, 1984, while his wife Pasquela Fernandes expired on 17th May, 1996. Manual and Pasquella had three sons and, namely now deceased petitioner No. 1 Benedito, Antonio and respondent No. 1 Pedro, and two daughters Ana Rosa and Salvacao. Manual Gonsalves was cultivating the suit field as a tenant thereof since the year 1944 till his death on 14th September, 1984 and his name is recorded in the tenant's column of the record of rights. According to the petitioners, on and from the Tiller's day i.e. 8th October, 1976, Manual Gonsalves became deemed purchaser of the suit field, in view of the 5th amendment to the said Act. In short, according to the petitioners, after the death of Manual and his wife Pasquela, their children along with their spouses have inherited the tenancy rights. It was contended that after the death of Manual, Pasquela was cultivating the suit field with the assistance of petitioner No. 1. 4. Upon the death of Pasquela, the first petitioner instituted Inventory Proceedings No. 60 of 1996 for partition of the assets, left by his parents, in which the suit field was listed at Item No. 10. It was contended that after the death of Manual, Pasquela was cultivating the suit field with the assistance of petitioner No. 1. 4. Upon the death of Pasquela, the first petitioner instituted Inventory Proceedings No. 60 of 1996 for partition of the assets, left by his parents, in which the suit field was listed at Item No. 10. The first and the second respondent raised an objection to the listing of the said asset, on the ground that there is a perpetual lease-deed executed by the third respondent in favour of the first respondent, in respect of the suit field on 9th April, 1994. In short, it was contended that the first respondent has become the exclusive tenant in respect of the suit field, by virtue of the said perpetual lease-deed. 5. According to the petitioners, they came to know about the perpetual lease-deed for the first time when such claim was laid before the Inventory Court. In such circumstances, in October, 1996 the petitioners filed Civil Suit No. 69 of 1996 before the learned Civil Judge, J.D., Quepem against the respondents, for a declaration that the purported lease-deed of the year 1994 is null and void and for cancellation of the same, apart from other reliefs. The present respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are defendant Nos. 2 and 3 in the said suit while the third respondent is defendant No. 1. 6. The first and the second respondent resisted the suit. It was contended that till the year 1974, Manuel was cultivating the suit field and after that, on account of his illness, he was bed-ridden, and since 1975 the suit field was cultivated by the first respondent by paying rent. The third respondent also claimed that the suit paddy field was cultivated by late Manuel till 1974, and thereafter from 1975, it was cultivated by the first respondent. 7. According to the petitioners, Manual was hale and hearty and was never bed-ridden, and he cultivated the suit field till his death in the year 1984. It was contended that Pasquela had been paying rent till her death in the year 1996 in the name of her husband. It was also contended that the first respondent, who was born on 9th January, 1957 was a minor in the year 1974 and being the youngest amongst the brothers, it was not plausible that he was cultivating the suit field. 8. It was also contended that the first respondent, who was born on 9th January, 1957 was a minor in the year 1974 and being the youngest amongst the brothers, it was not plausible that he was cultivating the suit field. 8. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the civil court framed issues, out of which issue Nos. 1, 6 and 7 were referred to the Mamlatdar. The petitioner sought deletion of the following issue no.1: Whether the plaintiff prove that his father was the tenant in cultivatory possession of the suit paddy field bearing S No 17/78 and after the death of father the mother of the plaintiff with assistance of the plaintiff started cultivating the same ? The trial court refused to delete the issue which was challenged by the petitioners, before this court in Civil Revision Application No 71/2000. This court decided the same on 16th June 2000. This court found that the issue no. 1 is required to be recast as under: Whether the defendant no. 2 proves that he is the tenant of the suit property of which defendant no. 1 is the landlord ? This court thereafter observed and held thus in para 5 of the judgment: "The said issue will have to be referred to the Mamlatdar. The suit is stayed till the decision on the issue. Respondent no 2 is directed to move the Mamlatdar for a decision of the said issue within 8 weeks from today. If the respondent no 2 does not move the Mamlatdar, the issue as is framed will be dismissed for non prosecution and the civil court can proceed to deal with the other issues." It is made clear that on the other hand the petitioner no 1 also claims joint tenancy. While deciding the issue of tenancy of the respondent no 2 ,it will be open to the Mamlatdar also to decide the issue whether petitioner no 1 and respondent no 2 are joint tenants on the contention of the petitioner no 1 that their father was cultivating as tenant upto 1984. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the first and the second respondent moved the Mamlatdar under Section 7 of the said Act for declaring them as the exclusive tenants of the suit field, which was registered as case No. 4/2004. 9. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the first and the second respondent moved the Mamlatdar under Section 7 of the said Act for declaring them as the exclusive tenants of the suit field, which was registered as case No. 4/2004. 9. The present petitioners appeared in the matter and raised several contentions, in line with their case made out in Civil Suit No. 16 of 2016. The third respondent did not appear before the Mamlatdar. 10. It appears that on 9th May, 2005 a deed of rectification was purportedly executed to the deed of perpetual lease of the year 1994, by the third respondent, for the first time setting out the recitals about Manuel Gonsalves cultivating the suit field only upto the year 1974 and thereafter giving up cultivation on account of his old age and sickness and the first respondent, having cultivated suit field from the year 1975. 11. According to the petitioners, the deed of rectification of the year 2005 is a collusive act of the respondent Nos. 1 to 3. It appears that the said deed of rectification was produced before the Mamlatdar after recording the evidence of both the parties. 12. Be that as it may, the learned Mamlatdar by an order dated 21st December, 2005 dismissed the application, which was challenged by the first and the second respondent before the Deputy Collector and SDO who allowed the appeal on 3rd September, 2010 and declared the first and the second respondent as the exclusive tenants in possession of the suit field. The petitioners unsuccessfully challenged the same before the Administrative Tribunal in Tenancy Revision No. 22/2010, which was dismissed on 12th July, 2011. Hence, this petition. 13. I have heard Mr. Thali, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ramani for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and Mr. Noronha, the learned counsel for the third respondent. The parties have also produced written submissions on record. I have gone through the same. This petition was also listed on 1st July 2020, for direction on which date I have heard parties. The learned counsel for the parties submitted that this court may decide the petition as written submissions have already been filed. 14. Mr. The parties have also produced written submissions on record. I have gone through the same. This petition was also listed on 1st July 2020, for direction on which date I have heard parties. The learned counsel for the parties submitted that this court may decide the petition as written submissions have already been filed. 14. Mr. Thali, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that admittedly Manuel Gonsalves was a tenant of the suit field and he was cultivating the suit field from 1974 till his death in the year 1984. It is submitted that after his death, his wife Pasquela was cultivating the suit field with the help of petitioner No. 1. It is submitted that the respondents have not shown that the said tenancy was either surrendered under S. 10, or terminated in accordance with S. 11 of the said Act. It is submitted that in the absence of the tenancy in favour of Manuel having been surrendered or being terminated, the respondent No. 1 cannot claim any exclusive tenancy in his favour on the basis of the alleged deed of rectification of the year 2005. It is submitted that the so called deed of perpetual lease does not reserve any annual rent and on the contrary, an amount of Rs. 11,000/- is shown as the consideration. It is submitted that the said document would be in the nature of sale-deed which is impermissible. It is submitted that Manuel was never ill or bed-ridden, as claimed. It is pointed out that Manuel was working as a Mukadam-cum-peon of the third respondent Cabido and he retired in the year 1977. It is pointed out that the first respondent was the youngest amongst the brothers and he was minor in the year 1975 and he was studying in the Pope John XXIII, Quepem upto the year 1975, and thereafter employed as a seaman. It is thus, submitted that it was implausible that respondent No. 1 was exclusively cultivating the suit field from the year 1975. It is pointed out that the petitioners had produced rent receipt No. 3466 dated 17th of May, 1987, evidencing the payment of rent by Pasquela from 1981 to 1986. It is pointed out that the third respondent failed to enter appearance before the Mamlatdar. It is submitted that the rectification of the year 2005 is clearly collusive and by way of an afterthought. It is pointed out that the third respondent failed to enter appearance before the Mamlatdar. It is submitted that the rectification of the year 2005 is clearly collusive and by way of an afterthought. It is submitted that the contention by the respondents, that the deed of rectification is not an afterthought, since rectification brings on record the facts, which were already pleaded before the civil court in their written-statement, filed on 6th December, 1996, cannot be accepted. This, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners, is on account of the fact that there is no reason forthcoming, as to why the said recitals were not incorporated in the lease-deed of the year 1994, and it took about 11 years for the third respondent to execute the rectification deed in the year 2005. It is submitted that the recitals of the lease-deed also run counter to rent receipt dated 17th May, 1987, by which Pasquela had paid rent from 1981 to 1986. 15. It is submitted that the Administrative Tribunal was not justified in holding that other legal heirs of Manuel were necessary parties, particularly when it was the case of the petitioners that they are joint tenants. It is pointed out that this Court in Civil Revision Application No. 71 of 2000 had directed the Mamlatdar to decide (i) whether the respondent No. 1 proves that he is tenant of the suit paddy filed or not? And (ii) whether the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 1 are joint tenants of the suit paddy field or not ? 16. It is submitted that the pleadings of the parties are already on record before the civil court, and therefore the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the petitioners ought to have filed an application claiming joint tenancy before the Mamlatdar. It is submitted that the heritability is an incident of tenancy. It is pointed out that Section 14 (1) of the said Act is similar to Section 40 of the Bombay Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("Bombay Act" for short). It is submitted that Section 14 (3) of the said Act has no applicability in the present case. 17. It is submitted that the heritability is an incident of tenancy. It is pointed out that Section 14 (1) of the said Act is similar to Section 40 of the Bombay Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("Bombay Act" for short). It is submitted that Section 14 (3) of the said Act has no applicability in the present case. 17. It is submitted that even assuming that the respondent succeeded in showing that Manuel was not cultivating the suit field on the Tiller's day i.e. on 8th October, 1976, that would not affect Manuel's tenancy in terms of Section 4 of the said Act. However, still the issue remains as to what happened to the tenancy of late Manuel Deputy Collector and SDO. Lastly, it is submitted that the appeal before the Deputy Collector and SDO purportedly filed under Section 49 of the said Act, was not maintainable in the absence of any notification, conferring powers of Collector on the Deputy Collector and SDO. 18. It is submitted that the proviso to Rule 51 of Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Revenue Survey and Record of Rights) Rules, 1967 ("1967 Rules" for short) as introduced in the year 2006 would make it clear that the survey made and the record of rights prepared under the provisions of Land Revenue Code would be deemed to be prepared under the Tenancy Act. It is pointed out that the Administrative Tribunal has also found that the Deputy Collector was in error in holding that the entries maintained under the Land Revenue Code do not have presumptive value in an inquiry under S. 7 of the said Act. 19. On behalf of the petitioners, reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of (i) The Printers (Mysore) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pothan Joseph, (1960) AIR SC 1156 ; (ii) S.V.R. Mudliar & Ors. Vs. Rajabu F. Buhari &Ors., (1995) 4 SCC 15 ; and (iii) Jagdish Singh Vs. Madhuri Devi, (2008) 10 SCC 497 in order to submit that the appellate authority could not have reversed the finding of the Mamalatdar in the absence of a finding that the order of the Mamalatdar was perverse. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. Madhuri Devi, (2008) 10 SCC 497 in order to submit that the appellate authority could not have reversed the finding of the Mamalatdar in the absence of a finding that the order of the Mamalatdar was perverse. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors., (1988) 4 SCC 534 in order to submit that the rules of pleadings insofar as the writ petition is concerned, differ, from the ones in respect of a civil suit. It is submitted that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were required to clearly plead the manner and the particulars of tenancy created in favour of the respondent No. 1 by the third respondent, which is lacking in this case. 20. Mr. Ramani, the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that Manuel Gonsalves cultivated the suit field only upto the year 1974, after which he was unable to cultivate the same on account of his old age and sickness. It is submitted that from 1975 it was the first respondent, who exclusively cultivated the suit field and in the year 1994 a perpetual lease-deed was executed by the third respondent in respect of which a rectification deed has been executed in the year 2005. It is submitted that contents and recitals of the rectification deed cannot be by way of an afterthought, inasmuch as a plea about the inability of Manuel to cultivate the field and the fact that the first respondent was cultivating the suit field from the year 1975 was very much pleaded in the suit in the year 1986 itself. It is pointed out that the third respondent/ landlord, as well as both sisters of the petitioner No. 1 and the respondent No. 1, namely Salvacao and Anarosa Gonsalves have supported the case of the first respondent. It is submitted that contrary to this, the case of the petitioner is based on inheritance of the tenancy rights upon death of Manuel and his wife Pasquela and thus the petitioners were required to file an application under S. 14 (3) of the said Act, which is not done. It is submitted that the learned Mamalatdar was clearly in error in declaring the petitioners and the respondent Nos. It is submitted that the learned Mamalatdar was clearly in error in declaring the petitioners and the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as joint tenants in the absence of other heirs of late Manuel. It is submitted that the Mamalatdar has overlooked the fact that Manuel was not a tenant when he died in the year 1984. 21. It is submitted that proviso to Rule 51 of the 1967 Rules would not apply in the present case, inasmuch as the inquiry under S. 7 of the said Act before the Mamalatdar was concluded on 21st December, 2005 that is much prior to introduction of the said proviso on 9th November, 2006. For this purpose, reliance is placed on the decision of this court in J.M.P. Dias Vs. Dena Bank,1989 2 GoaLT 146 and Pilerne Citizens Forum & Anr. Vs. The State of Goa & Ors. (Writ Petition No. 228/2011, dated 28th February, 2013) . It is submitted that without prejudice to the said contention and assuming that the proviso to Rule 51 would apply, still the question was whether the presumption stood rebutted. It is submitted that on the basis of the oral evidence, and particularly when the landlord had not disputed the claim and two sisters of the contesting parties had supported the case of the respondents the the presumption, if any, on the basis of the name of Manuel Gonsalves appearing in the record of rights, stood rebutted. It is submitted that the sub-divisional officer has rightly set aside the order passed by the Mamalatdar, which has been confirmed by the Administrative Tribunal, and no case for interference is made out. 22. Mr. Noronha, the learned counsel for the third respondent, apart from adopting the submissions on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, has mainly confined his submissions to the proviso to Rule 51 of the 1967 Rules. It is submitted that the proviso introduced in the year 2006 would not apply or affect a matter already decided and "its benefits cannot be availed in a subsequent appeal". It is pointed out that the decision in the case of J.M. P. Dias (supra) has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in a later decision in N. B. Dhargalkar Vs. M/s. Suvarna Industries, (1996) 1 GoaLT 249 . It is pointed out that the decision in the case of J.M. P. Dias (supra) has been upheld by the Division Bench of this Court in a later decision in N. B. Dhargalkar Vs. M/s. Suvarna Industries, (1996) 1 GoaLT 249 . Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in (i) M/s. Ambalal Sarabhai Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Amrit Lal & Co., (2001) AIR SC 3580 and (ii) Vishwant Kumar Vs. Madan Lal Sharma & Anr., (2004) 1 SCC 1 . He therefore, submits that no case for interference is made out. 23. I have carefully considered the rival circumstances and the submissions made. 24. The interse relationship between the parties is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that Manuel was cultivating the suit field owned by the respondent No.3 from the year 1944 as a tenant thereof. The dispute principally is as to whether Manuel continue to cultivate the suit field till his death in the year 1984 and after that his wife Pasquela was cultivating the suit field till her death in the year 1996, as claimed by the petitioners or whether Manuel was unable to cultivate the suit field on account of his alleged ill health after the year 1974 and whether it was the respondent no 1 who exclusively started cultivating the suit field from the year 1975 as claimed by the respondents. According to respondent Nos.1 and 2, the third respondent has executed a perpetual lease deed in the year 1994 exclusively in favour of the first respondent as a tenant. The recitals about the alleged ill health of Manuel on account of which he was allegedly required to discontinue the cultivation in the year 1974 has been recorded in the rectification deed in the year 2005. It is true that prior thereto such a defense was raised in the civil suit filed by the petitioners. However the prima facie the fact remains that the perpetual lease deed was not corrected till the year 2005. 25. Be that as it may, before the Mamlatdar the first respondent examined himself along with his Power of Attorney holder Smt. Salvasso Gonsalves (A.W.1) who is his sister and Mr. Jose Oliveiro an agricultural labourer (A.W.2) yet another sister Smt. Ana Rosa (A.W.4) and one more witness as A.W.3. The Petitioner No.1 examined himself along with two other witnesses. 26. Be that as it may, before the Mamlatdar the first respondent examined himself along with his Power of Attorney holder Smt. Salvasso Gonsalves (A.W.1) who is his sister and Mr. Jose Oliveiro an agricultural labourer (A.W.2) yet another sister Smt. Ana Rosa (A.W.4) and one more witness as A.W.3. The Petitioner No.1 examined himself along with two other witnesses. 26. The Mamlatdar found that the Cabido is governed by a compromisso, in consonance with the Canon Law and all such acts, agreements and transactions entered into by the Cabido with any other persons have to be in writing. The Mamlatdar further found that the particulars as to who, when and how the tenancy was created in favour of the respondent No.1 (the applicant No.1 before the Mamlatdar) was not elucidated in the evidence. The Mamlatdar has also considered that the provisions of the Tenancy Act and that all the Mundkar Act are not "akin to each other". This has been considered in the context of the case made out by the respondent Nos.1 and 2 that the petitioners Benedito and his wife Smt. Cristina were staying separate from the other family members. The Mamlatdar found that the separate stay of the Petitioner No.1 (the respondent No.2 before the Mamlatdar) does not debar the right of inheritance, in as much as the "kinship relations would still continue". It is in these circumstances that the Mamlatdar had found that essentially the question and the scope of the inquiry was to decide whether the respondent No.1 is the sole tenant of the Cabido or whether the petitioner Benedito alongwith the respondent No.1 Pedro were co-tenants of the suit field. The Mamlatdar in this regard has considered the oral evidence including certain admissions by A.W.1 that respondent No.1 Pedro was paying rent of the suit field for the period from 1975 to 1980, in the name of his father Manuel. Thus the Mamlatdar came to the conclusion that Benedito and Pedro were joint tenants in respect of the suit field, as having inherited the tenancy rights from their father Manuel under Section 14 of the said Act. 27. The Dy Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer while reversing the said order has principally held that the petitioner Benedito was required to file an application under Section 14(3) of the Act. 27. The Dy Collector and Sub-Divisional Officer while reversing the said order has principally held that the petitioner Benedito was required to file an application under Section 14(3) of the Act. For this purpose, the Sub-Divisional Officer has relied upon sub-Section 3 of Section 14 of the said Act which provides that where any question arises as to the person or persons in whose favour the tenancy is deemed to have been continued under the forgoing provisions such question shall be determined by the Mamlatdar after hearing the landlord and other persons interested in the matter. The Sub-Divisional Officer has found that since there is no application under Section 14(3), there was no question of inheritance which can be arise and therefore the case of joint tenancy as set up by the petitioners cannot be accepted. Incidently, the Sub-Divisional Officer has also found that there is nothing on record to show that Manuel Gonsalves was a tenant of the suit field, except that his name is recorded in form No.I and XIV. The Sub-Divisional Officer also found the record of rights were not prepared under the Agricultural Tenancy Act and in as much as they were prepared under the Land Revenue Code, they cannot have presumptive value under inquiry under Section 7 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act. 28. Coming to the judgment and order of the Administrative Tribunal in so far as the last issue about presumptive value of the record of rights is concerned, the Tribunal has found that the Deputy Collector was in error in holding that there was no presumptive value to such record. This is because of the proviso to Rule 51 of 1967 Rules as introduced in the year 2006 which stipulates that the record of rights under the Land Revenue Code shall be deemed to be prepared and maintained under the said Rules. The parties have addressed their submissions on this issue at some length. Be that as it may, the Tribunal has also principally gone on the aspect that the issue considered by the Mamlatdar namely "Whether applicant No.1 proves that he is the sole tenant of suit paddy field or whether applicant No.1 and the respondent No.2 are joint tenants of the suit paddy field is not framed by this court and therefore Mamlatdar was in error in considering any such issue. 29. 29. The reasoning to that effect in my considered view is incorrect. This is on account of the fact that while deciding the Civil Revision Application No.71/2000, this Court while modifying the issue No.1 has made it clear that while deciding the modified issue it will be open to the Mamlatdar also to decide the issue whether the Petitioner No.1 and the respondent No.1 were joint tenants on the basis of the contention that their father was cultivating as tenant up to the year 1984. 30. In my considered view neither the Sub-Divisional Officer nor the Administrative Tribunal has considered the issue as to what happened to the tenancy of Manuel when he was admittedly cultivating the suit field as a tenant of the Cabido from the year 1944. It is necessary to emphasise that even the respondents are not disputing that till the year 1974 Manuel was cultivating the suit field. Therefore, what I find is that the Sub-Divisional Officer or the Administrative Tribunal have not considered the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that in the absence of the tenancy of the Manuel having been either surrendered or terminated in accordance with law no exclusive tenancy in favour of respondent No.1 could have been created. I therefore, find that the matter needs to be remanded to the Administrative Tribunal for deciding the revision application afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law. 31. As noticed earlier, the Tribunal had found on the basis of the proviso to Rule 51 of the 1967 Rules that the record of rights prepared under the Land Revenue Code would be deemed to have been created under the provision of said rules under the Tenancy Act. However, considering the fact that the parties have contested the said issue and relied upon certain authorities which were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the rival contentions including the contention on the basis of proviso to Rule 51 of 1967 Rules are hereby kept open. However, considering the fact that the parties have contested the said issue and relied upon certain authorities which were not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, the rival contentions including the contention on the basis of proviso to Rule 51 of 1967 Rules are hereby kept open. It is made clear that even if the Tribunal finds that on account of proviso to Rule 51 of 1967 Rules a presumption attaches to the record of rights still the question would be whether the said presumption stands rebutted on the basis of the oral and the documentary evidence and in the context of the issue as to what happened to the admitted tenancy of Manuel. These are some of the issues which require consideration by the Tribunal. 32. In the result, the following order is passed. ORDER (a) Petition is partly allowed. (b) The impugned judgment and order dated 12/07/2011 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa in Tenancy Revision Application No.22 of 2010 is hereby set aside. (c) Tenancy Revision Application No.22 of 2010 is hereby restored to the file of the Administrative Tribunal for deciding it afresh on its own merits and in accordance with law. (d) The parties to appear before the Administrative Tribunal, Goa on 03rd August, 2020 at 10.00 a.m. The Administrative Tribunal shall decide the revision application as expeditiously as possible and preferably on or before 30th April, 2021. (e) Rival contentions of the parties are left open. (f) In the circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.