Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, School Anjuman Noorul Islam, represented by its Secretary Shaikh Mhammed Iqbal, filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an ex-parte order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller on 24.09.1983 and the subsequent execution proceedings. The respondents were the legal heirs of the original landlord Joao De Andrade E Souza. The petitioner contended that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition filed in 1976 because the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968 was not extended to the City of Panaji at that time, relying on notifications dated 30.09.1969 which allegedly excluded Panaji. The petitioner also argued that the ex-parte order was never communicated to them and they only came to know about it when they received notice in execution proceedings. The respondents argued that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and had acquiesced to the jurisdiction, and that the challenge was highly belated. The court, after hearing both sides, held that the petitioner had not raised the issue of jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity and had acquiesced by participating. The court also noted that the ex-parte order was passed after the petitioner failed to appear despite notice, and the challenge after more than 30 years was barred by delay and laches. The writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Jurisdiction - Applicability of Rent Act - Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968, Section 1(2) - The court examined whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to entertain eviction proceedings in 1976 when the Act was allegedly not extended to Panaji. The petitioner argued that notifications dated 30.09.1969 excluded Panaji and the Act was extended to entire Goa only from 23.12.1980. The court held that the petitioner had acquiesced to the jurisdiction by participating in the proceedings and not raising the issue at the earliest opportunity. (Paras 4-10)
B) Rent Control - Ex-parte Order - Validity - Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968 - The petitioner contended that the ex-parte order dated 24.09.1983 was never communicated to him. The court noted that the petitioner had notice of the proceedings and failed to appear, and the order was passed in accordance with law. The challenge after decades was not entertained due to delay and laches. (Paras 5-12)
C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Delay and Laches - Article 227 of the Constitution of India - The court held that the petitioner's challenge to the eviction order after more than 30 years was barred by delay and laches. The petitioner had not shown any sufficient cause for the delay. The writ petition was dismissed. (Paras 13-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition in 1976 when the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968 was allegedly not extended to Panaji at that time, and whether the ex-parte order passed in 1983 was valid and could be challenged after decades.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Jurisdiction of Rent Controller
- Applicability of Rent Act by notification
- Ex-parte order
- Acquiescence to jurisdiction
- Delay and laches
- Writ jurisdiction under Article 227
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (03) 118
Writ Petition No.176 of 2021
Mr Kaif Noorani for the Petitioner; Mr M.B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr Rehan Abbasi for the Respondents
School Anjuman Noorul Islam, Panaji, represented by its Secretary Shaikh Mhammed Iqbal
Joao De Andrade E Souza (since deceased) represented by his legal heirs
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an ex-parte eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and subsequent execution proceedings.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the ex-parte order of eviction dated 24.09.1983 and the execution proceedings on the ground of lack of jurisdiction and non-communication of the order.
Filing Reason
The petitioner claimed that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition in 1976 as the Rent Act was not extended to Panaji at that time, and that the ex-parte order was never communicated to them.
Previous Decisions
The Rent Controller passed an ex-parte order of eviction on 24.09.1983. The petitioner did not challenge the order until they received notice in execution proceedings, leading to the filing of the present writ petition in 2021.
Issues
Whether the Rent Controller had jurisdiction to entertain the eviction petition in 1976 under the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968?
Whether the ex-parte order of eviction dated 24.09.1983 was valid and could be challenged after a delay of more than 30 years?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Rent Act was not extended to Panaji at the time of filing of the eviction petition in 1976, relying on notifications dated 30.09.1969 which excluded Panaji, and that the Act was extended to entire Goa only from 23.12.1980. Therefore, the proceedings were without jurisdiction.
Petitioner argued that the ex-parte order dated 24.09.1983 was never communicated to them and they only came to know about it when they received notice in execution proceedings.
Respondents argued that the petitioner had participated in the proceedings and had acquiesced to the jurisdiction, and that the challenge was highly belated and barred by delay and laches.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the petitioner had acquiesced to the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller by participating in the proceedings without raising the issue of jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity. Additionally, the challenge to the ex-parte order after more than 30 years was barred by delay and laches, and the petitioner failed to provide any sufficient cause for the delay. Therefore, the writ petition under Article 227 was not maintainable.
Judgment Excerpts
The second submission of Mr Noorani is that the Rent Controller on 24.09.1983 observed in the Roznama that the case is fixed for orders which was supposed to be communicated to the parties. According to Mr Noorani, no such order was passed or ever communicated to the parties by the same Presiding Officer or by any other officer, till the time when the Applicant received notice in the execution proceedings filed by the Respondent to execute the order/judgment.
The court held that the petitioner had acquiesced to the jurisdiction and the challenge was barred by delay and laches.
Procedural History
The eviction petition was filed by the respondent before the Rent Controller in 1976. An ex-parte order of eviction was passed on 24.09.1983. The petitioner did not challenge the order until they received notice in execution proceedings. The petitioner filed the present writ petition in 2021 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order and the execution proceedings.
Acts & Sections
- Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968: Section 1(2)
- Constitution of India: Article 227
