Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a rent eviction suit filed by landlords against the legal heirs of a deceased tenant under the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. The landlords sought eviction and recovery of arrears for 64 months of unpaid rent. The trial court decreed the suit ex-parte in 2018, ordering eviction and payment of arrears. The landlords then filed an execution application. The tenants learned of the execution and applied to set aside the ex-parte decree, claiming they did not receive proper notice of the suit as service was made on an incorrect address and to a person not the tenant's wife. The executing court set aside the ex-parte decree in 2022 and restored the suit for merits hearing. The landlords appealed, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal in 2025. The landlords then filed a writ petition challenging these orders. The core legal issues were whether the service of summons was valid and whether the tenant complied with Section 32 of the Rent Control Act by depositing arrears to contest the proceedings. The landlords argued that service was proper despite minor address discrepancies and that the tenant failed to deposit rent, barring them under Section 32. The tenants contended that service was defective on a wrong address and to a fictitious person, and they had deposited all arrears. The court analyzed the evidence, noting the bailiff's report of service on 'Shweta Shekhar Naik' at 'House No. 69' versus the tenant's actual residence and wife's name 'Kalpana Shekhar Naik'. It found the service invalid, justifying the setting aside of the ex-parte decree. Regarding Section 32, the court noted the tenant deposited the arrears, which was undisputed, thus entitling them to contest. The court upheld the appellate and trial court orders, dismissing the writ petition and allowing the rent suit to proceed on merits.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Service of Summons - Validity of Service - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The court examined whether service of summons in the original rent suit was valid, considering discrepancies in the address and identity of the recipient. The bailiff reported service on 'Shweta Shekhar Naik' at 'House No. 69', while the respondent claimed residence at 'S-5, Second Floor, St. Joseph Apts' and that his wife was 'Kalpana Shekhar Naik'. The court found the service defective as it was on a wrong address and to a person not the respondent's wife, justifying setting aside the ex-parte decree. Held that improper service vitiates the ex-parte proceedings, and restoration for merits hearing is warranted. (Paras 5-6, 8-9) B) Rent Control Law - Eviction Proceedings - Deposit of Arrears of Rent - Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, Section 32 - The court considered whether the tenant was barred from contesting the eviction proceedings due to non-deposit of arrears under Section 32. The respondent deposited the entire arrears in the trial court, which was not disputed by the petitioners. The court held that since the arrears were deposited, the tenant was entitled to contest the proceedings, and Section 32 did not preclude restoration of the suit. Held that compliance with Section 32 by depositing arrears validates the tenant's right to defend. (Paras 6, 8)
Premium Content
The Headnote is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access key legal points
Issue of Consideration: Whether the Appellate Court and Trial Court erred in setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree in the rent suit and restoring the suit for disposal on merits, and whether the tenant complied with Section 32 of the Rent Control Act by depositing arrears of rent
Premium Content
The Issue of Consideration is only available to subscribed members.
Subscribe Now to access critical case issues
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the appellate court's judgment and order dated 26 March 2025 and the trial court's order dated 6 May 2022, thereby allowing the rent suit to be restored for disposal on merits.
