JAYRAM RAMCHANDRA SIRSAT (DECEASED THR. LRS) AND 12 ORS v. HOTEL POORNIMA REP. BY SHEKHAR KASHINATH NAIK, SINCE DECEASED THR. LRS.
Procedural Propriety in Rent Control Matters: Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree for Defective Service Overrides Statutory Rent Deposit Requirements at the Preliminary Stage of Suit Restoration.
Court: Bombay High Court
Citation: 2026:BHC-GOA:659
Decision Date: 27-03-2026
List of Laws
Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968; Section 32 of the Rent Control Act (Payment or deposit of rent during pendency); Principles of Natural Justice (Audi Alteram Partem); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Service of Summons)
- Facts: The Petitioners (landlords) filed an eviction suit under Section 22 of the Goa Rent Control Act against the Respondents (legal heirs of the tenant) for non-payment of rent. In January 2018, the Trial Court decreed the suit ex-parte, directing the Respondents to vacate and pay arrears. During execution proceedings, the Respondents claimed they were never served with the original suit summons. They alleged the Petitioners provided a wrong address and the bailiff served an unknown person named 'Shweta Naik', whereas the deceased tenant's wife was 'Kalpana Naik'. Upon learning of the decree during execution, the Respondents moved to set it aside.
- Procedural Posture: The Trial Court set aside the ex-parte decree in May 2022 and restored the suit to its original file. This order was challenged by the landlords but upheld by the Appellate Court (District Court) in March 2025. The landlords then filed this Writ Petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa.
- Issue: Whether an ex-parte decree can be set aside for defective service of summons if the tenant has not yet deposited the arrears of rent as per the mandate of Section 32 of the Rent Control Act.
- Holding: Yes, the High Court upheld the lower courts' decisions to set aside the ex-parte decree due to "bad service".
- Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the principles of natural justice require a party to be afforded an opportunity of hearing. Both lower courts concurrently found that the summons was never served on the actual Respondents and was instead delivered to a fictitious or unrelated person at a different address. Regarding Section 32, the Court clarified that while a tenant must deposit rent to "contest" a suit, the act of setting aside an ex-parte decree on the grounds of non-service is a procedural correction of a legal defect, not a "contest" on merits. Since the Respondents had subsequently deposited the arrears, and the restoration of the suit merely placed the parties back at the starting point, there was no jurisdictional error.
🔒 For Members Only