Synopsis

The landlords obtained an ex‑parte eviction decree against the tenant for non‑payment of rent. When the landlords initiated execution, the tenant appeared and filed an application to set aside the ex‑parte decree, contending that he was never properly served with the summons. The trial court set aside the ex‑parte decree and restored the eviction suit to its original file. The appellate court affirmed that order. The landlords then filed a writ petition under Article 227, arguing that the tenant was barred from contesting the proceedings under Section 32 of the Rent Control Act because he had not deposited the arrears of rent. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the setting aside of an ex‑parte decree for want of proper service does not amount to “contesting the proceedings” under Section 32; the provision applies only after a validly instituted proceeding is ready for contest. Since service was invalid, the tenant had no opportunity to deposit rent, and the courts below had correctly restored the suit to give the tenant a hearing on merits.

Court: High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Goa Bench)
Coram: Dr. Neela Gokhale, J.
Date: March 27, 2026
Core Law: Rent Control – Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 – Sections 22 (eviction for non‑payment of rent) and 32 (payment/deposit of rent during proceedings).

2. Legal Framework

• Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968:
  Section 22 – eviction on grounds of non‑payment of rent.
  Section 32 – requirement for tenant to pay or deposit all arrears of rent before contesting eviction proceedings; failure may lead to an order of possession.

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order IX Rule 13 – setting aside ex‑parte decree when summons not duly served.

... Upgrade to a Premium Plan to view the full judgment.