Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Michael Anthony William Gareth and Amelia Gareth, were tenants in premises at St. Tome Road, Panaji-Goa. The respondent, Maria do Rosario Da Fatima A.L. Faria e Alvares (alias Fatima Alvares), sought their eviction. The Rent Controller, Panaji, passed an eviction order on 25.1.2006. The petitioners appealed to the Administrative Tribunal of Goa (Eviction Appeal No.3 of 2006). Final arguments were heard on 22.8.2006, and the appeal was fixed for judgment on 28.9.2006. However, the judgment was adjourned 33 times and ultimately delivered on 7.10.2009 — over three years later. On 19.6.2009, the Presiding Officer sought clarifications and heard brief arguments. The petitioners challenged the Tribunal's judgment before the Bombay High Court at Goa, arguing that the inordinate delay caused prejudice as many of their contentions were not considered. They relied on the judgment in Pradeep K.R. Sangodker v. State of Goa, (2006) 2 Goa Law Reporter 343, which gave directions to avoid such delays. The High Court found that the Tribunal acted in breach of those directions and that the delay of three years clearly caused prejudice to the petitioners. The court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and remanded the appeal for fresh hearing, directing the Tribunal to decide it within three months. The petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Delay in Delivery of Judgment - Natural Justice - The Administrative Tribunal heard final arguments on 22.8.2006 and reserved judgment, but delivered it on 7.10.2009 after 33 adjournments and a gap of over three years. The High Court held that such inordinate delay caused serious prejudice to the petitioners as several contentions were not considered, and the Tribunal acted in breach of the directions in Pradeep K.R. Sangodker v. State of Goa, (2006) 2 Goa Law Reporter 343. The impugned judgment was quashed and the matter remanded for fresh hearing. (Paras 4-7) B) Rent Control - Eviction - Remand - The Rent Controller had ordered eviction on 25.1.2006. The appeal against that order was dismissed by the Tribunal on 7.10.2009 after a three-year delay. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order and remanded the appeal for fresh disposal in accordance with law, directing the Tribunal to decide the appeal within three months. (Paras 3, 7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the inordinate delay of three years in delivering judgment by the Administrative Tribunal, after hearing final arguments, vitiates the judgment and warrants setting aside the eviction order.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The judgment and order dated 7.10.2009 passed by the Administrative Tribunal is quashed and set aside. The Eviction Appeal No.3 of 2006 is restored to the file of the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of the writ. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Delay in delivery of judgment
- breach of natural justice
- prejudice to litigant
- directions in Pradeep K.R. Sangodker case
