Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Jaiprakash Chintaman Sardessai, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court at Goa, challenging the judgment and orders of the Rent Controller and the Administrative Tribunal. The dispute arose from an eviction application filed by the respondent, Anthony C. Mendes, through his attorney Michael Francis Pinheiro, seeking eviction of the petitioner from a tenanted premises on grounds of non-payment of rent, damage to the premises, change of user, acquisition of alternative accommodation, and bona fide requirement for own occupation. The Rent Controller initially dismissed the eviction application for non-prosecution on 25.04.2005 due to the respondent's failure to file an affidavit of evidence despite several opportunities. However, on 07.11.2005, the respondent filed an affidavit of evidence, and the Rent Controller proceeded to pass an ex-parte order directing the eviction of the petitioner. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order, which was rejected by the Rent Controller. The petitioner then appealed to the Administrative Tribunal, which also rejected the application. The petitioner challenged these orders in the writ petition. The High Court, after hearing both sides, held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities, based on the material on record, did not warrant interference under Article 226. The court noted that the petitioner had failed to show sufficient cause for his non-appearance before the Rent Controller. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. No order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Eviction - Ex-parte Order - Setting Aside - Sufficient Cause - The petitioner sought to set aside an ex-parte eviction order passed by the Rent Controller under the Goa Rent Control Act. The Rent Controller and the Administrative Tribunal rejected the application on the ground that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for his non-appearance. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities, based on the material on record, did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 3-6)
B) Rent Control - Eviction - Non-Prosecution - Restoration - The respondent's eviction application was initially dismissed for non-prosecution on 25.04.2005. However, the respondent subsequently filed an affidavit of evidence on 07.11.2005, and the Rent Controller proceeded to pass an ex-parte eviction order. The petitioner's application to set aside the ex-parte order was rejected. The High Court upheld the rejection, noting that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for his absence. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Rent Controller and the Administrative Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioner's application to set aside the ex-parte eviction order on the ground that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for his non-appearance.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Ex-parte order
- setting aside ex-parte order
- sufficient cause
- non-prosecution
- restoration of proceedings
- Rent Controller
- Administrative Tribunal
- Goa Rent Control Act
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (12) 129
WRIT PETITION NO. 371 OF 2011
Mr. Sudin M. S. Usgaonkar with Ms. Prema Matkar for the petitioner; Mr. C. A. Coutinho for the respondent
Mr. Jaiprakash Chintaman Sardessai
Mr. Anthony C. Mendes, through his attorney Mr. Michael Francis Pinheiro
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and orders of the Rent Controller and the Administrative Tribunal rejecting the petitioner's application to set aside an ex-parte eviction order.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the ex-parte eviction order passed by the Rent Controller and the order of the Administrative Tribunal confirming the same.
Filing Reason
The petitioner's application to set aside the ex-parte eviction order was rejected by the Rent Controller and the Administrative Tribunal, leading to the filing of the writ petition.
Previous Decisions
The Rent Controller initially dismissed the eviction application for non-prosecution on 25.04.2005, but later passed an ex-parte eviction order. The petitioner's application to set aside the ex-parte order was rejected by the Rent Controller and the Administrative Tribunal.
Issues
Whether the Rent Controller and the Administrative Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioner's application to set aside the ex-parte eviction order on the ground that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for his non-appearance.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that the ex-parte eviction order was passed without proper notice and that he had sufficient cause for his non-appearance.
The respondent contended that the petitioner failed to show sufficient cause and that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower authorities should not be interfered with.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact by the Rent Controller and the Administrative Tribunal, based on the material on record, did not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for his non-appearance before the Rent Controller.
Judgment Excerpts
The above petition challenges the judgment and orders passed by the Rent Controller as well as the Administrative Tribunal whereby the application filed by the petitioner to set aside the ex-parte order directing the eviction of the petitioner from the suit property came to be rejected.
I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel and perused the records. I find that the concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Rent Controller and the Administrative Tribunal are based on the material on record and do not warrant any interference in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Procedural History
The respondent filed an eviction application before the Rent Controller. The application was dismissed for non-prosecution on 25.04.2005. On 07.11.2005, the respondent filed an affidavit of evidence, and the Rent Controller passed an ex-parte eviction order. The petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order, which was rejected by the Rent Controller. The petitioner appealed to the Administrative Tribunal, which also rejected the application. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Goa Rent Control Act:
