Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, tenants of a premises rented at ₹20 per month, received a notice from the landlord on 15.04.2010 seeking enhancement of rent to ₹500 per month due to increased cost of living. The tenants disputed the landlord's ownership and the basis for enhancement. The landlord filed an eviction application under Section 22(2)(a) and 22(2)(g) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. The tenants filed a reply and also an application under Section 22(3) of the Act seeking permission to deposit arrears at the rate of ₹20 per month for the period January 2009 to January 2011, amounting to ₹500, along with costs. The Rent Controller, without giving an opportunity of hearing to the tenants, passed an order directing deposit of arrears at the enhanced rate of ₹500 per month. The tenants challenged this order before the High Court. The High Court held that the Rent Controller's order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice as the tenants were not heard before the order was made. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration after affording both parties an opportunity of hearing. The court directed the Rent Controller to decide the application under Section 22(3) afresh, keeping all contentions open.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - Section 22(3) of The Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 - The Rent Controller directed deposit of arrears at enhanced rate without hearing the tenants, violating principles of natural justice - Held that the order is unsustainable and set aside, matter remanded for fresh consideration after hearing both parties (Paras 1-5).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Rent Controller's order directing deposit of rent at enhanced rate without giving opportunity of hearing to the tenants is sustainable in law.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order of the Rent Controller, and remanded the matter to the Rent Controller for fresh consideration after affording both parties an opportunity of hearing. The Rent Controller was directed to decide the application under Section 22(3) of the Act afresh, keeping all contentions open.
Law Points
- Natural justice
- Rent enhancement
- Eviction proceedings
- Goa Rent Control Act
- Section 22(3) deposit
- Opportunity of hearing
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (06) 157
Writ Petition No. 286 of 2023
Ms Samiksha M Vaigankar, Advocate under Legal Aid Services for the Petitioners; Mr Preetam Talaulikar, Advocate for Respondent No.1.1.
Ms. Kusum Pandari Naik and Ms. Kumud Pandari Naik
Mrs Kamal Soman Naik Raikar @ Shobhavati N. Parpati (since deceased) through legal heirs
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging order of Rent Controller directing deposit of arrears at enhanced rent without hearing tenants.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners-tenants sought setting aside of Rent Controller's order and direction to decide application under Section 22(3) afresh after hearing them.
Filing Reason
Rent Controller passed order directing deposit of arrears at enhanced rate of Rs.500 per month without giving opportunity of hearing to the tenants.
Previous Decisions
Rent Controller's order dated Not mentioned directing deposit of arrears at enhanced rate.
Issues
Whether the Rent Controller's order directing deposit of rent at enhanced rate without giving opportunity of hearing to the tenants is sustainable in law.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners-tenants argued that the order was passed without affording them an opportunity of hearing, violating principles of natural justice.
Respondents-landlords supported the Rent Controller's order.
Ratio Decidendi
An order directing deposit of arrears at enhanced rent under Section 22(3) of the Goa Rent Control Act cannot be passed without giving the tenant an opportunity of hearing, as it affects the tenant's rights and violates principles of natural justice.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners-tenants and learned counsel for the respondents-landlords.
The Rent Controller, after considering the reply filed by the landlord, passed an order directing deposit of arrears at the enhanced rate of Rs.500 per month without giving an opportunity of hearing to the tenants.
The impugned order is unsustainable and is set aside.
Procedural History
Landlord filed eviction application under Section 22(2)(a) and 22(2)(g) of the Act. Tenants filed reply and application under Section 22(3) for deposit of arrears at old rate. Rent Controller passed order directing deposit at enhanced rate without hearing tenants. Tenants filed writ petition challenging that order.
Acts & Sections
- The Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968: 22(2)(a), 22(2)(g), 22(3)
