The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited circumstances in which the Executing Court can hold that the decree cannot be executed, the distinction between void and voidable decrees, and the principle that the Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and cannot question its legality or correctness.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH PITALE, J.

1. The petitioners have challenged order dated 26.8.2020, passed by the Court of Ad-hoc District Judge-I, FTC, Mapusa, Goa (hereinafter referred to as the District Court), whereby an appeal filed by respondent no. 1 through legal representatives (hereinafter referred to as the contesting respondents) has been allowed and order passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Mapusa (hereinafter referred to as the Executing Court), has been quashed and set aside. The Executing Court had rejected the objections raised by the contesting respondents to the execution of the decree and warrants were issued.

2. The facts leading to filing of the present Writ Petition are that one Franklin de Mello i.e. predecessor of the proforma respondent nos. 2 and 3, filed an application for eviction of the predecessor of the contesting respondents from the property in question under Section 22(2)(a) of the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968. The application was filed on 26.2.1973, on the ground that the predecessor of the contesting respondents i.e. the tenant had failed to pay rent from February, 1967. The tenant filed a reply denying the existence of tenancy and instead claimed that he was staying in the premises as a mundkar for last 15 years and on this basis, it was stated that the Rent Controller did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application for eviction.

3. Since the issue of mundkarship was raised, the Rent Controller directed the tenant to seek a declaration from the Mamlatdar concerning such status of being a mundkar. When the tenant failed to obtain such a declaration and he also did not deposit arrears of rent, the Rent Controller took up the proceedings for eviction. The Rent Controller was also informed that a mundkar declaration case filed by the tenant was dismissed in default by the Mamlatdar. Thereafter, the Rent Controller passed an order in the eviction proceedings, dated 28.10.1975, directing the tenant to hand over possession of the suit premises within three months to the aforesaid Franklin de Mello.

4. Against this order, the tenant filed appeal before the Administrative Tribunal. The said appeal was allowed and the order of the Rent Controller was set aside. The proceedings before the Rent Controller were further directed to be stayed till the Mamlatdar decided a revival application filed by the tenant. On 11.12.1980, the Mamlatdar dismissed the application for revival, holding that the premises were indeed tenanted and that the tenant was not a mundkar. At this stage, the said Franklin de Mello filed an application under Section 32(4) of the aforesaid Rent Act, stating that the tenant had not deposited the rent without any sufficient cause and that therefore, appropriate action ought to be taken against the tenant.

5. In reply to the said application, the tenant denied the relationship of the landlord and tenant and further denied his liability to deposit the rent.

6. The Rent Controller treated this as denial of title and ordered an inquiry under Section 21 of the Rent Act. After recording evidence and hearing arguments in the matter, on 30.1.1996, the Rent Controller allowed the application for eviction, holding that the tenant had denied the title without any bona-fide and accordingly the tenant was directed to handover possession of the premises.

7. It is an admitted position that the Mamlatdar had dismissed the application for declaration of mundkarship and the appeal filed against the same was dismissed by the Additional Collector by judgment and order dated 4.2.1982. Hence, the findings on the issue pertaining to mundkarship had attained finality against the tenant.

8. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.1.1996 passed by the Rent Controller, the tenant i.e. predecessor of the contesting respondents filed appeal before the Administrative Tribunal. The proforma respondents had already come on record before the Rent Controller and hence, they were parties in the s