Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VALMIKI SA MENEZES
Ghatge Patel Transport Pvt. Ltd., represented herein by its authorized representative, Shri Ramchandra G. Naik, son of Shri Gangaram Naik – Appellant
Versus
Arun U. Salgankar, son of Shri Upendra Salgaonkar – Respondent
JUDGMENT:
Registry to waive objections and register these Petitions and connected Civil Applications.
2. Heard Mr Sudin Usgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. S.D. Lotlikar, learned Senior Advocate for Respondent.
3. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Advocates for the parties these two Writ Petitions are disposed of finally.
4. In Writ Petition No.133/2025 (Filing), the Petitioner challenges order dated 28.08.2023 passed by the Principal District Judge, North Goa at Panaji dismissing Civil Miscellaneous Application No.7/2023, rejecting the Petitioner’s application for condonation of delay of 136 days in filing a Rent Appeal to challenge the judgment dated 30.07.2022 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Court, Panaji in Rent Case No.26/2016/C. The judgment dated 30.07.2022 passed by the Civil Judge/Rent Controller in the Rent Case, directing eviction of the Petitioners in terms of Section 22(2)(a) and Section 23 of the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (“Rent Act”) has also been challenged in this Petition.
5. In Writ Petition No.135/2025 the Petitioners have, consequent to being directed by judgment
Eviction proceedings under the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act are valid if the tenant fails to deposit rent as required, and the landlord's bona fide requirement can justify evict....
The court established that under Sec. 32(4) of the Rent Control Act, tenants must be given a fair opportunity to contest eviction proceedings, and failure to serve notice on the tenant constitutes a ....
The judgment establishes that repeated defaults in rent payment by a tenant, without timely applications for extension, can lead to eviction under the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.
Setting aside ex-parte eviction decree for defective service restores suit without requiring prior rent deposit under Section 32; deposit mandatory only to contest merits at trial, upholding natural ....
The Rent Controller cannot condone any delay in filing a leave to defend application, and a corporate entity can maintain an eviction petition for its bona fide need.
The failure of the tenant to deposit the rent under Section 27 of the Act, after the landlord's refusal to accept the tendered rent, makes the tenant liable for eviction under Section 14(1)(a) of the....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that parties should be held to their commitments made before the Rent Controller and the court, and that pleadings before the Rent Controller shoul....
The judgment emphasizes the importance of regular rent payments and compliance with deposit rules by tenants, and it upholds the rights of illiterate landlords to property use.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
