HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
( BEFORE DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.)
Writ Petition No. 692/2023
SUHAS JAYRAM SIRSAT AND ORS. … PETITIONERS
VERSUS
HOTEL POORNIMA (SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS) … RESPONDENTS
Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 – Section 32-Trial Court setting aside of Ex-parte Judgment and Decree due to non-service of tenant and restoring the Rent Suit to its original file for its determination on merits, has not permitted the tenant to per se contest the suit without depositing the arrears of rent – In the event that the Trial Court concludes that the Respondent has not deposited the entire arrears of rent, it is always open for the Court to refuse to allow the tenants to ‘contest’ the Suit.
HELD
By way of restoring the suit, the Trial Court has not permitted the Respondent to per se contest the suit without depositing the arrears of rent. The Trial Court has only held that the service of the Suit to the Respondent is bad in law and is not good service. In these circumstances, the Trial Court has set aside its own ex-parte Judgment and Decree and restored the Suit to its original file. At this stage, all that the Trial Court has done is to hold the notice of the suit to be wrong service. (para 12)
FACTS
The Petitioners are the landlords, and the Respondents are the legal heirs of the deceased tenant. The Petitioners filed an application against the Respondents for eviction and recovery of arrears of rent under Section 22 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, (‘Rent Control Act’), bearing number Rent Act Suit No. 03/2016/F seeking eviction of the tenants on the ground that the tenants were in default of the payment of the rent. The said suit was decreed ex-parte by Judgment and Decree dated 5th January 2018, wherein the Respondents were directed to vacate the suit premises and hand over the possession of the suit premises to the Petitioners. They were also directed to pay arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 45,500/- to the Petitioners and further rent from the date of filing the case till the vacant possession of the suit premises was actually handed over to the Petitioners.
Pursuant to the said ex-parte Judgment and Decree dated 5th January 2018, the Petitioners filed a Regular Execution Application bearing No. 6/2018/F. The Executing Court issued notices to the Judgment Debtor, i.e. the Respondents herein, of the Execution Application. It is alleged by the Respondents that neither the notice of the Civil Suit nor the notice of the Execution Application was received by them at the addresses furnished by the Petitioners to the Court as the addresses of the Respondents. However, they learnt of the pendency of the Execution Application when they received a notice of the said Execution Application served to him on the suit premises. It was at this point in time that the Respondents learnt that a Suit had been instituted by the Petitioners for their eviction.
The Executing Court, by its Order dated 06.05.2022, set aside the ex-parte Judgment and Decree passed by it in Rent Act Suit No. 3/2016/F and restored the Suit to its original file to be decided on merits. The Petitioners challenged this Order dated 06.05.2022 before the Appellate Court, i.e. the District Court (FTC) at Mapusa. The Appellate Court, after hearing both sides, was pleased to dismiss the Appeal by its Judgment and Order dated 26th March 2025.
3.5. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their Appeal, the Petitioners have filed the present Writ Petition assailing the Order dated 26th March 2025 passed by the District Court (FTC) at Mapusa. Along with this Order, the Petitioners have also challenged the Orders dated 06.05.2022, dismissing their Execution Application, and dismissing their application seeking possession of the suit property for non-payment of rent by the Respondents under Section 32 of the Rent Control Act.
For Judgment Click 👇