Case Note & Summary
The matter concerned a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India filed in the High Court of Bombay at Goa. The petitioner was a tenant of a part of house No. E/99 situated at Mapusa, Goa. The respondent-landlord had initiated eviction proceedings in 1983 before the Additional Rent Controller, Mapusa, seeking eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement under the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968. The landlord died during the pendency on 27.11.1993 and her heirs were brought on record. The Additional Rent Controller allowed the eviction application on 28.03.1996, holding the landlord's claim to be bona fide. The petitioner-tenant appealed to the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, under Section 45 of the Act. The Tribunal heard arguments on 21.03.2011 and directed written submissions, but judgment was pronounced only on 29.05.2012, dismissing the appeal. Certified copy was delivered after a further four months. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 16 of 2013 challenging this dismissal, alleging that the more than thirteen-month delay in pronouncing judgment and four-month delay in certified copy vitiated the order. The High Court issued Rule on 22.04.2013 and stayed operation of the impugned order subject to deposit of rent. Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that excessive delay undermines confidence in the judicial process and that some important points might have escaped notice. The respondent-landlord argued that on 07.03.2012 the Tribunal had given an opportunity to re-argue, which both sides declined in favour of earlier arguments and written submissions; that the Tribunal had considered every point; and that no prejudice was shown. The respondent relied on Shri Allen E. Valles v. The Recovery Sales Officer & Ors and Shakuntala Bai v. Narayan Das to argue that the petitioner must demonstrate a ground not considered and that prolonged litigation should not erode faith in judicial system. The High Court examined the record and referred to its earlier decisions in Gurudas Hari Dhekne v. Rucmini Laxmidas, Pradeep Sangodkar v. State of Goa, Manguesh Kasturi Pai v. Administrative Tribunal of Goa, and Jitendra Raghuraj Deshprabhu v. Vasudeo Rajendra Deshprabhu. Those precedents established that unreasonable delay between hearing and delivery of judgment is highly undesirable unless explained by exceptional circumstances; that justice must not only be done but manifestly appear to be done; and that judgments should be pronounced within three months from conclusion of arguments. The Division Bench had previously quashed and remanded a matter due to about fifteen months' delay in violation of these directions. The instant case involved a thirteen-month delay and a further four-month delay in certified copy. The High Court noted the Tribunal's record, including the roznama of 07.03.2012 showing the parties declined re-argument and requested decision on earlier arguments and written submissions. The provided judgment text ends before the final operative direction; therefore, the final holding and relief granted are not recorded in the excerpt. The court's analysis focused on whether the delay caused failure of justice and whether the grounds were fully considered.
Headnote
A) Judicial Procedure - Delay in Pronouncement of Judgment - Unreasonable Delay Between Hearing Arguments and Delivery of Judgment - Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968, Section 45; Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226 and 227 - The Administrative Tribunal heard arguments on 21.03.2011 and pronounced judgment on 29.05.2012; the petitioner contended that this over 13-month delay and further 4-month delay in delivery of certified copy invalidated the decision. The High Court referred to precedents holding unreasonable delay is highly undesirable absent exceptional circumstances and justice must manifestly appear to be done. Held that the effect of delay must be assessed on the facts, including whether any ground raised was left unconsidered (Paras 1-7). B) Judicial Discipline - Directions on Timely Disposition - Time Limit for Pronouncing Judgment After Arguments - Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968, Section 45; Constitution of India, 1950, Articles 226 and 227 - The High Court in Pradeep Sangodkar v. State of Goa laid down directions that judgment should be pronounced within three months from conclusion of arguments and that violating officers must report such matters. The Division Bench in Jitendra Raghuraj Deshprabhu quashed and remanded when delay of about fifteen months occurred in violation of these directions. The instant case involved a thirteen-month delay and the High Court examined whether exceptional circumstances or failure of justice existed. Held that the delay and opportunity to re-argue must be balanced against the need for faith in judicial process (Paras 7). C) Rent Control and Eviction - Bona Fide Requirement - Prejudice and Prolonged Litigation - Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968, Sections 23(3) and 45 - The landlord had obtained eviction order on ground of bona fide requirement, and proceedings dated back to 1983. The respondent-landlord relied on Shakuntala Bai v. Narayan Das, (2004) 5 SCC 772, to argue that an extreme view in old proceedings erodes faith in judicial system and that no prejudice was shown as all points were considered and petitioner declined re-argument. The High Court noted this contention while evaluating whether delay alone vitiated the Tribunal's order. Held that the adequacy of consideration and absence of demonstrated prejudice were relevant to deciding whether the delayed judgment should stand (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of over 13 months in pronouncing the judgment and order and further 4 months in delivery of certified copy by the Administrative Tribunal vitiated the impugned judgment and order in Eviction Appeal No.175/2003 under Section 45 of the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968.
Law Points
- Unreasonable delay between hearing of arguments and delivery of judgment is highly undesirable unless explained by exceptional and extraordinary circumstances
- Justice must not only be done but must manifestly appear to be done
- Judgment should be pronounced within three months from conclusion of arguments
- Violation of directions on timely pronouncement may vitiate the judgment if failure of justice is caused
- Prolonged litigation should not erode faith in judicial system
