Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from eviction proceedings initiated by landlords against tenants under Section 22(2)(g) of the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 before the Rent Controller. The tenants were initially granted multiple adjournments due to Covid-19 disruptions and other reasons. On 20.11.2021, the Rent Controller closed the opportunity for tenants to file their reply to the eviction application because neither tenants nor their advocates were present. The tenants then filed an application Exhibit D-6 on 15.12.2021 seeking recall of that order and grant of opportunity to file reply. The Rent Controller allowed this application on 08.06.2022, granting additional opportunity subject to payment of costs of ₹2000. Aggrieved, the landlords filed Rent Revision No. 05/2022 before the Revisional Authority, which stayed the Rent Controller's order and ultimately allowed the revision on 26.08.2022, holding that the Rent Controller had no power to recall its own order because proceedings before the Rent Controller are regulated by the Mamlatdar's Court Act, which does not provide for recall, and the Civil Procedure Code applies only to recording of evidence. The Revisional Authority reasoned that the only remedy for the tenants was to file a revision before the higher court, and that the Rent Controller's order closing the right to file reply was itself a revisional order under Section 46 of the Rent Control Act. The tenants then filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay at Goa challenging the revisional order. The High Court held that the Revisional Authority erred in law by failing to consider Rule 11 of the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, which provides for setting aside ex-parte orders on showing unavoidable circumstances. The High Court observed that even if Rule 11 were strictly construed to apply only to ex-parte eviction orders, the Rent Controller possessed ancillary and incidental powers to entertain an application for recall of an order closing the opportunity to file a reply, provided sufficient cause was shown. The High Court relied on decisions in Major (retd.) Kehar Singh v. Velen tino Xavier Pereira and M/s Panduronga Timblo Industries v. M/s Cosme Matias Menezes Ltd. regarding the scope of Rent Controller's procedural powers. Accordingly, the High Court concluded that the Revisional Authority's order was unsustainable and that the Rent Controller had power to recall the order dated 20.11.2021 and grant additional opportunity to file reply. The final operative order is not fully extracted in the provided text, but the High Court's reasoning favoured the tenants.
Headnote
A) Rent Control Law - Ancillary and Incidental Powers - Power to Recall Procedural Order - Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 and Rules - Revisional Authority held Rent Controller lacked power to recall order dated 20.11.2021 closing opportunity to file reply and grant additional opportunity; High Court held that under ancillary and incidental powers, Rent Controller could entertain application for recall if sufficient cause shown. Held that Revisional Authority erred in holding otherwise (Paras 15-16). B) Rent Control Law - Procedure for Setting Aside Ex-parte Orders - Rule 11 - Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules - Revisional Authority did not consider Rule 11 which provides for setting aside ex-parte orders within 30 days on showing unavoidable circumstances; High Court observed that strict construction of Rule 11 to only ex-parte eviction orders may not be warranted (Paras 14-15). C) Rent Control Law - Application of Civil Procedure Code - Mamlatdar's Court Act and CPC - Revisional Authority held CPC permits setting aside only under Mamlatdar's Court Act and has no provision for recall; High Court noted that CPC applies only to recording of evidence but Rent Controller's ancillary powers may include recall of procedural orders (Paras 13-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Rent Controller has power to recall an order closing the opportunity to file a reply and grant additional opportunity to tenants to file reply in eviction proceedings under the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968.
Final Decision
The High Court held that the Revisional Authority erred in law by holding that Rent Controller lacked power to recall its order; it found that under ancillary and incidental powers, Rent Controller could entertain recall application if sufficient cause shown. The final operative order is not extracted in the provided text.
Law Points
- Rent Controller has ancillary and incidental powers to recall procedural orders if sufficient cause shown
- Rule 11 of Goa Buildings (Lease
- Rent and Eviction) Control Rules may not be strictly confined to ex-parte eviction orders
- Proceedings before Rent Controller are regulated by Mamlatdar's Court Act with CPC applying only to recording of evidence
- Application for recall of order closing opportunity to file reply is entertainable provided sufficient cause shown
