Rent Controller Cannot Decide Tenancy Status Where Claimant Previously Disavowed Tenancy Claims in Civil Proceedings

The Petitioner is the owner of a shop premises in Cortalim, Goa

The Respondent claims to be an oral lessee since 1974, though no rent receipts exist

In 2010, the Respondent filed for restoration of electricity before the Rent Controller but withdrew it in 2012

He subsequently filed a Civil Suit (RCS 51/2012/A) for injunction against illegal dispossession

During the suit, the Respondent actively opposed the framing of an issue regarding tenancy, and the High Court previously ruled in his favor, setting aside the tenancy issue on the grounds that he sought relief based on possession, not tenancy

After obtaining a decree protecting his possession in the Civil Suit, the Respondent filed a fresh application (Rent Case 1/RC/2015/C) under Section 35 of the Rent Control Act for restoration of electricity

The Petitioner challenged the Rent Controller’s jurisdiction to conduct an inquiry into the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship where such relationship is denied

The District Judge upheld the Rent Controller's power to conduct the inquiry, leading to this Writ Petition

1. Whether the Rent Controller under the Goa Rent Control Act has the jurisdiction to determine the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship when it is denied by the landlord

2. Whether the Respondent is estopped from seeking a determination of tenancy before the Rent Controller after having actively opposed such a determination in the Civil Suit

Section 35 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, regarding the restoration of essential services

Om Prakash Gupta v. Dr. Rattan Singh, which establishes that a simple denial of a landlord-tenant relationship cannot oust the jurisdiction of specialized tribunals, as they have the inherent power to conduct preliminary inquiries into their own jurisdiction

Doctrine of estoppel and res judicata in the context of maintaining inconsistent legal positions across different forums

The Court first clarified that while the Rent Control Act does not expressly empower the Controller to declare tenancy, the power to decide if parties fall within the statutory definitions is inherent to exercising jurisdiction under the Act

The Court found that the Respondent had "actively thwarted" previous attempts to determine the tenancy relationship in the Civil Court by claiming he was only seeking protection of possession

Having successfully argued in the High Court that the issue of tenancy was irrelevant to his civil suit, the Respondent cannot now "flip-flop" and invoke the Rent Controller’s jurisdiction for benefits under the Rent Act

The Court held that since the case involved complex questions of fact, title, and estoppel, the Rent Controller—a tribunal of limited jurisdiction—was not the appropriate forum; such declarations of legal character vest solely with the Civil Court

The High Court allowed the petition, quashing the orders of the District Judge (23rd January 2024) and the Rent Controller (11th October 2022). The Respondent cannot use the Rent Controller to indirectly obtain a tenancy declaration after waiving that opportunity in Civil Court. Rule made absolute.