Statutory bar on contesting eviction without rent deposit is inapplicable to setting aside ex-parte decrees for improper service.

The Petitioners (landlords) filed an eviction suit (Rent Case No. 3/2016/F) against the Respondents (tenants) under Section 22 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 ("Rent Control Act") citing 64 months of rent arrears.

The Trial Court passed an ex-parte judgment and decree on January 5, 2018, ordering eviction and payment of arrears.

During execution proceedings, the Respondents appeared and moved to set aside the ex-parte decree, alleging they were never served summons as the Petitioners provided incorrect addresses.

Specifically, the bailiff report claimed service upon the tenant’s wife, "Shweta Naik," whereas the wife’s actual name is "Kalpana Naik".

On May 6, 2022, the Trial Court set aside the ex-parte decree and restored the suit. This was upheld by the Appellate Court on March 26, 2025.

1. Whether the service of summons upon the Respondents was legally valid given the discrepancy in the identity of the recipient and the address provided?

2. Whether Section 32 of the Rent Control Act bars a tenant from filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree unless all arrears of rent are first deposited?

Section 32 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, which stipulates that a tenant is not entitled to "contest" eviction proceedings before any authority or prefer an appeal/revision unless they deposit all arrears of rent.

Principles of Natural Justice, specifically the right to a fair hearing where service of process is found to be defective.

The Court observed that the initial summons to the suit premises were returned unserved as the hotel was locked, and subsequent service at a residential address was purportedly made on a "Shweta Naik".

Concurrent findings by the lower courts established that the respondent’s wife is Kalpana Naik, meaning the summons were served on a fictitious or incorrect person, constituting "bad service".

Regarding the Petitioners’ argument under Section 32, the Court clarified that the statutory bar on "contesting" proceedings without depositing rent does not prevent a court from correcting a jurisdictional error, such as an ex-parte decree obtained without proper service.

The Court reasoned that setting aside an ex-parte decree due to non-service is a restoration of the status quo ante rather than a "contest" on the merits of the eviction.

Furthermore, the Court noted that the Respondents had eventually deposited the entire arrears of rent during the High Court proceedings, satisfying the spirit of Section 32.

The Court held that since the original service of summons was invalid, the restoration of the suit was necessary to comply with natural justice.

The Court clarified that if the Trial Court later finds the tenant has failed to deposit arrears, it remains open to the court to refuse the tenant the right to "contest" the trial under Section 32.

The Trial Court was directed to expedite the proceedings as the suit has been pending for over seven years.