PANDURANG DAMODAR KAMATversusGEORGE VEERAMPULLY

2026:BHC-GOA:889
                                                WP NO. 328 OF 2024


                   Andreza


                              IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
                                   WRIT PETITION NO.328 OF 2024

                   Shri Pandurang Damodar Kamat, S/o late
                   Damodar Kamat, Aged 72 years, married,
                   business, Resident of H.No.529, Novo ...Petitioner
                   Palmar, Cortalim, Mormugao Goa.

                                       Versus

                   Shri George Veerampully, S/o Porinchu
                   Veerampully, Aged 68 years, married,
                   Business, Resident of H.No.247/5, Church
                   street, Cortalim and        Running his
                   Carpentry and business At (Shop No.435)
                   House No.963, Opposite to D. R. Kamat
                   Office, Novo Palmar, Cortalim, Mormugao, …Respondent
                   Goa.

                   Mr. R. G. Ramani, Senior Advocate with Mr Pranav
                   Kakodkar and Mr. Vinayak Nevrekar, Advocates for the
                   Petitioner.

                   Mr. Dharmanand Vernekar, Advocate for the Respondent.
                                 ----------------------------

                                           CORAM: DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J.

                                     Reserved on: 16th APRIL 2026
                                   Pronounced on: 23rd APRIL 2026
                                        ------------------------------

                   JUDGMENT


                   1.        Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. With consent of both

                   the parties, the matter is taken up for final hearing. Learned

                   Counsel appearing for the Respondent, waives notice.


                                                    Page 1 of 18
                                                  23rd April 2026
                            WP NO. 328 OF 2024


2.    By way of the present petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing

and setting aside of Judgment and Order dated 23 rd January 2024

passed by the District Judge-2, South Goa, Margao (‘District

Judge’) dismissing the Rent Revision Application No. 18/2022

assailing Order dated 11th October 2022 passed by the Civil Judge

Junior   Division,    “C”   Court,       Vasco,   Goa   (‘CJJD/   Rent

Controller’) in Rent Case No. 1/RC/2015/C. The Rent case was

filed by the Respondent seeking restoration of electricity supply

under Section 35 of the Goa, Daman & Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent

and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 (‘Rent Control Act’). The

Petitioner denied the existence of a Landlord-Tenant relationship

between him and the Respondent, due to which the Rent Controller

decided to hold an inquiry in that regard. Being aggrieved by the

said Order, the Petitioner filed the Rent Revision Application before

the District Judge, which application was dismissed. It is this Order

that is assailed by the Petitioner in the present petition.


3.    The facts of the present case, in brief, are as follows:


      3.1    All that piece and parcel of suit premises bearing Shop

No. 435, situate at Nova Palmerar of Village Cortalim,Mormugao-

taluka was owned by the Petitioner’s father. After his death, the

Petitioner became the absolute owner of the said property.


                                Page 2 of 18
                              23rd April 2026
                             WP NO. 328 OF 2024


      3.2    It is alleged by the Respondent that in July 1974, Mr.

Damu Kamat, late father of the Petitioner, leased the said premises

to the Respondent by an oral agreement. The Respondent claims to

have paid rent of Rs. 30/- per month, which was increased to Rs.

100/- per month from August 1984, directly to Mr. Damu Kamat,

and after his death, to the Petitioner. No rent receipts were issued

on the account of cordial relations between the parties, and the

Petitioner and his son tried to forcibly evict the Respondent and

have also cut off the electricity in the suit premises.

      3.3    Way back on 4th August 2010, the Respondent filed an

application seeking restoration of essential services and for deposit

of rent before the Rent Controller. The Petitioner filed his reply

dated 3rd September 2010, raising a preliminary objection to the

existence of the relationship of land lord-tenant between the

parties. The Rent Controller directed the Respondent to produce on

record the rent receipts etc. However, the Respondent withdrew his

application itself on 9th April 2012.


      3.4. On 5th September 2012, the Respondent instituted a

suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 51/2012/A against the

Petitioner before the Civil Judge Senior Division, Vasco (‘CJSD’),

seeking permanent injunction restraining the Petitioner from

evicting the Respondent from the suit premises; mandatory
                                 Page 3 of 18
                               23rd April 2026
                           WP NO. 328 OF 2024


injunction directing the Petitioner to restore the electricity supply

and some other alternate and incidental reliefs.

      The Petitioner by way of his Written Statement denied any

landlord-tenant relationship between him and the Respondent, as

also between the Respondent and the Petitioner’s late father.

      3.5. During the pendency of the suit, the Respondent once

again filed Rent Case No. 1/RC/2015/C on 27th February 2015

before the Rent Controller under Section 35 of the Rent Act for

restoration of electricity supply against the Petitioner, claiming

landlord-tenant relationship between the parties. The Petitioner,

on 03rd June 2015, filed his Written Statement in the Rent Case.

      3.6. The Respondent filed an application seeking interim

reliefs pending inquiry to restore electricity supply to the

premises, under Section 35(3) of the Rent Act in the Rent Case. By

Order dated 15th October 2015, the Rent Controller rejected the

said application on the ground that the previous proceedings

initiated by the Respondent against the Petitioner in the year

2010, on the same subject matter, were unconditionally

withdrawn and there was an unexplained delay thereafter in

approaching the Rent Controller. However, the Rent Controller

opined that an inquiry has to be conducted to determine whether

there was any landlord-tenant relationship between the parties
                               Page 4 of 18
                             23rd April 2026
                           WP NO. 328 OF 2024


before determining the Section 35 Application.

      3.7. The Petitioner made an application, dated 03rd March

2021, in Regular Civil Suit No. 51/2012/A under Order XIV Rule 5

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (‘CPC’) for framing

additional issues. By Order dated 07 th April 2021, the said

application was allowed and two additional issues on tenancy were

framed by the CJSD.

      3.8. Aggrieved by the same, the Respondent filed Writ

Petition No. 1961/2021-F before this Court. By Order dated 23 rd

March 2022, this Court quashed and set aside Order dated 07 th

April 2021 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 51/2012/A, holding

that the Respondent had not sought any reliefs based on tenancy

but on the basis of illegal dispossession by the Petitioner. Hence

the Writ Petition was allowed and this Court directed the trial

before the CJSD to proceed on merits, without being influenced by

the observations of this Court.

      3.9. On 23rd June 2022, Petitioner filed an application for

dismissal of the Rent Case on the ground that the Rent Controller

has no jurisdiction to determine whether there existed a landlord-

tenant relationship between the parties. By Order dated 11th

October 2022 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, “C”

Court, Vasco, Goa, the Petitioner’s application for dismissal of
                               Page 5 of 18
                             23rd April 2026
                            WP NO. 328 OF 2024


Rent Case was rejected on the ground that since at the Civil Judge

Junior Division was acting as an authority under the Rent Act, it

had the jurisdiction to determine whether there was a landlord-

tenant relationship between the parties.

      3.10. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner, on 19th

November 2022, filed Rent Revision No. 18/2022 before District

Judge seeking quashing and setting aside of the said Order,

rejecting the Petitioner’s application for dismissal of Rent Case.

      3.11. In the meanwhile, Judgment and Order dated 27 th

November 2023 came to be passed in Regular Civil Suit No.

51/2012/A. The suit was partly decreed in favour of the

Respondent. The Petitioner was restrained from evicting or

dispossessing the Respondent from the suit premises otherwise in

accordance with law.

      3.12. By Judgement and Order dated 23rd January 2024,

the Rent Revision No. 18/2022 was dismissed by the District

Judge.

      3.13.    It is this Judgment and Order, which is impugned

herein.

4.    Mr. R. G. Ramani, learned Senior Advocate, represented for

the Petitioner and Mr. Dharmanand Vernekar, learned Counsel,

represented the Respondent.
                                Page 6 of 18
                              23rd April 2026
                               WP NO. 328 OF 2024


5.      SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONER:


        i)       Mr. Ramani submitted that the District Judge ought

not to have proceeded with the matter when the Respondent was

claiming landlord-tenant relationship on the basis of an oral lease,

which was denied by the Petitioner.

        ii)      That the District Judge erroneously observed that the

decision of the Bombay High Court in the matter of Vincente

Palha v/s Jaffrey Fernandes1, would not apply in the present

case.

        iii)     That the scope of inquiry under Section 35 of the Rent

Act is limited to finding out if essential services in respect of a

premises were unjustifiably cut off by the landlord, and does not to

extend to determining whether there existed a landlord-tenant

relationship between the parties.

        iv)      That the Rent Act does not confer any jurisdiction on

the Rent Controller to decide the issue of landlord-tenant

relationship.

        v)       That the Rent Controller or the Rent Tribunal can

exercise the same powers as the Mamlatdar under the Goa

Mamlatdar’s Court Act, 1966, as provided under Rule 9 of the Goa

Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Rules,1966.


1 2006 DGLS (Bom) 22
                                   Page 7 of 18
                                 23rd April 2026
                              WP NO. 328 OF 2024


       vi)     That the Civil Judge, acting as a Rent Controller,

could not have exercised powers under the CPC as available to a

Civil Court.

       vii)    That Section 9 of the CPC does not confer any

jurisdiction on the Authorities under the Rent Act to decide the

question of tenancy.

       viii) That the Rent Controller does not have the

jurisdiction to determine whether there was any landlord-tenant

relationship between the parties, when the Respondent had

opposed framing of issue on Tenancy in Regular Civil Suit No.

51/2012/A, filed by the him against the Petitioner.

       ix)     Mr. Ramani relied on the following decisions in

support of his contentions:

        1) H.S. Puttashankara v/s Yashodamma2

        2) Om Prakash Gupta v/s Dr. Rattan Singh and

             Anr3

6.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:


       i)      Mr. Vernekar submitted that there is no error or

perversity in the impugned Judgement and Order, passed by the

District Judge.


2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1940
3 1962 SCC OnLine SC 111
                                  Page 8 of 18
                                23rd April 2026
                            WP NO. 328 OF 2024


      ii)     That the Rent Controller has the jurisdiction to

conduct an inquiry under Section 35 of the Rent Act to determine

whether there was any landlord-tenant relationship between the

parties, to decide if the reliefs sought by the Respondent could be

granted or not.

      iii)    That the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to decide

landlord-tenant relationship cannot be curtailed by mere denial of

the said relationship by the landlord.

      iv)     That the judgment of Vincente Palha (Supra) was

rightly held to not apply to the present case.

      v)      That there is evidence to show that the Respondent

carried out business in the suit premises.

      vi)     That the Regular Civil Suit No. 51/2012/A was

instituted by the Respondent only because the Petitioner and his

son were trying to forcibly evict him and as they removed the

electricity fuse box from the premises.

      vii)    That the Respondent opposed framing of issue with

respect to tenancy as he had not sought any reliefs based on

tenancy but on the basis being dispossessed illegally by the

Petitioner.

      viii) That the Regular Civil Suit No. 51/2012/A was partly

decreed in the favour of the Respondent, restraining the Petitioner

from illegally evicting the Respondent from the suit premises.
                                Page 9 of 18
                              23rd April 2026
                               WP NO. 328 OF 2024


         ix)      Mr. Vernekar relies on the following decisions in

support of his contentions:

     1) Om Prakash Gupta v/s Dr. Rattan Singh and Anr4

     2) Assa Singh (Dead) by Legal Representatives v/s

         Shanti Prasad (Dead) by Legal Representatives

         and Ors.5

     3) Amar Singh and Anr. v/s Dalip6

     4) Khadeeja and Ors. v/s Haris Haji V.7

     5) Kharaiti Ram Bansal Lal v/s Shmt. Radha Rani

         and Anr.8

7.       Heard both the learned Counsel appearing for the respective

parties and perused the record with their assistance.



ANALYSIS


8.       Although, the question that arises for consideration in the

present case is whether the Civil Court in the exercise of its

jurisdiction as Rent Controller can proceed to determine the

existence of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the



41962 SCC OnLine SC 111
5(2021) 19 SCC 290
6(1981) AIR (Punjab) 237
7(2019) 3 KLT 693
8(1969) 2 ILR (Punjab) 374
                                  Page 10 of 18
                                 23rd April 2026
                           WP NO. 328 OF 2024


parties, the same needs to be considered on the backdrop of the

previous proceedings between the parties.


9.    Admittedly, the Respondent had contested the framing of the

issue pertaining to the existence of the landlord tenant relationship

between the parties in the Civil Suit No. 51/2012/A before the

CJSD, and had also withdrawn an application made earlier by him

before the Rent Controller, seeking restoration of essential services

and deposit of rent. The said application was withdrawn by the

Respondent.


10.   Admittedly, the suit instituted by the Respondent was for

permanent injunction simplicitor, seeking to restrain the Petitioner

from evicting the Respondent from the premises, without following

the due process of law. As mentioned above, the Petitioner had

resisted the prayer in the suit and had denied any legal relationship

with the Respondent in relation to the said premises. In fact, the

Petitioner had sought framing of an issue to determine the

existence or otherwise of a relationship of landlord and tenant

between the parties. Accordingly, the Civil Court had framed the

said additional issue.


11.   The Respondent had filed a Writ Petition before this Court

assailing the decision of the Civil Court to frame the said issue. The
                              Page 11 of 18
                             23rd April 2026
                          WP NO. 328 OF 2024


Respondent was at pains to canvass before this Court that such an

issue was neither required to be framed nor decided by the Civil

Court for the reason that the Respondent was not claiming the relief

of injunction on the basis of Respondent being the landlord’s

tenant. This Court in its Order dated 23 rd March 2022 recorded the

submission of the Respondent that the dispute between the parties

is not one that pertains to the claim of tenancy but an injunction

restraining the Petitioner from illegally evicting the Respondent.

This Court, thus, held that since the issue of tenancy is not at the

forefront of the Respondent’s case before the Civil Court, but the

relief of injunction was sought on the basis of the Respondent’s

possession of the property, the said issue regarding existence of

tenancy was not relevant. Hence, this Court set aside the Order of

the Civil Court framing the additional issues regarding existence of

the landlord-tenant relationship. The trial was then directed to be

proceeded.


12.   Ultimately, the Civil Court protected the possession of the

Respondent in the suit premises and restrained the Petitioner from

dispossessing him, without following due process of law. After

having waived an opportunity of getting the relationship between

himself and the Petitioner determined in the Civil Court, in fact,

also actively contesting the same, now the Respondent has sought
                             Page 12 of 18
                            23rd April 2026
                            WP NO. 328 OF 2024


to exercise a right of a tenant to avail the benefits of the provisions

of the Rent Control Act. It is during the pendency of this suit, that

once again, the Respondent made an application before the Rent

Controller, seeking restoration of essential services in respect of the

premises.


13.   In these circumstances, the existence of a relationship

remains undetermined. The Respondent’s application under

Section 35 of the Rent Control Act is pending before the Rent

Controller. The proceeding before the Rent Controller is stayed by

this Court by Order dated 04 th April 2024. The Petitioner has once

again denied the existence of his relationship with the Respondent

as a tenant. However, the Petitioner’s contention is that this issue

can be decided only by the Civil Court and the Rent Controller has

no jurisdiction to determine the same.


14.   Admittedly, there is no express provision in the Goa Rent

Control Act empowering the Controller or the Tribunal to

determine the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The

provisions of the Rent Control Act postulate a pre-existing

relationship. The Act is directed to control some of the terms and

incidents of that relationship. The various provisions of the Rent

Control Act indicate that the Rent Controller is vested with

                               Page 13 of 18
                              23rd April 2026
                            WP NO. 328 OF 2024


jurisdiction to entertain an application for eviction made by a

landlord. The jurisdiction to order eviction depends entirely on the

existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. Hence, the power to

decide whether the ‘landlord’ and the ‘tenant’ fall into the definition

of the words as given in Section 2 of the Act, must also be vested

with the Rent Controller.


15.    Section 21 of the Act provides that if a tenant denies the title

of a landlord or claims a right of permanent tenancy, the Controller

is vested with the jurisdiction to decide as to whether the claim or

denial is bona fide. Ordinarily, it is for the Civil Court to decide

complex issues regarding title of a person to property. But this Act

is enacted to provide for control of rents and evictions of tenants,

avowedly for their benefit and protection. Ordinarily, in a situation

where the tenant seeks restoration of electricity to the premises,

and the landlord denies the relationship itself, the jurisdiction of

the Rent Controller to inquire into this question cannot be ousted.

The Rent Controller would be well within his jurisdiction to conduct

a preliminary inquiry to ascertain the existence of such

relationship.


16.   The Supreme Court in the matter of Om Prakash Gupta

(Supra) held that:

                               Page 14 of 18
                              23rd April 2026
                             WP NO. 328 OF 2024


      “….The Act proceeds on the assumption that there is such a
      relationship. If the relationship is denied, the authorities
      under the Act have to determine that question also, because
      a simple denial of the relationship cannot oust the
      jurisdiction of the tribunals under the Act. True, they are
      tribunals of limited jurisdiction, the scope of their power
      and authority being united by the provisions of the Statute.
      But a simple denial of the relationship either by the alleged
      landlord or by the alleged tenant would not have the effect
      of ousting the jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act,
      because the simplest thing in the world would be for the
      party interested to block the proceedings under the Act to
      deny the relationship of landlord and tenant. The tribunals
      under the Act being creatures of the Statute have limited
      jurisdiction and have to function within the four-corners of
      the Statute creating them. But within the provisions of the
      Act, they are tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction and their
      orders are final and not liable to be questioned in collateral
      proceedings like a separate suit or application in execution
      proceedings. In our opinion, therefore, there is no
      substance in the contention that as soon as the appellant
      denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, the
      jurisdiction of the authorities under the Act was completely
      ousted...”


17.     In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be held that the Rent

Controller has no jurisdiction at all to conduct an inquiry to prima

facie establish the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship

between the parties, while determining any application made to the
                                Page 15 of 18
                               23rd April 2026
                           WP NO. 328 OF 2024


Rent Controller under the Rent Control Act, including the

application seeking restoration of essential services. However,

returning to the facts in the present case, the Civil Court, the Rent

Controller has decided to proceed with a preliminary inquiry to

determine the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between

the parties, before deciding the application under Section 35 of the

Rent Control Act as made by the Respondent. This Court, in its

Order dated 23rd March 2022, had allowed the writ petition filed by

the Respondent, assailing the framing of the issue regarding his

relationship with the Petitioner as tenant. The Respondent had

actively thwarted all efforts made by the Petitioner regarding the

determination by this Court or the CJSD, regarding existence or

otherwise of their relationship. In fact, the Respondent had himself,

also withdrawn a previous application made by him before the Rent

Controller seeking restoration of essential services, asserting his

character as ‘tenant’ The Petitioner has thus, raised the plea of

estoppel against the Respondent repeatedly seeking a tenancy

declaration, by making application for restoration of essential

services. In fact, in the Civil Suit No. 51/2012/A, the Respondent

sought a simplicitor injunction, restraining the Petitioner from

dispossessing him from the suit premises. The Respondent, in fact,

made a statement before this Court, that he does not claim tenancy

rights but merely seeks protection of his possession. Having taken
                              Page 16 of 18
                             23rd April 2026
                            WP NO. 328 OF 2024


contrary and independent stands before the Civil Court, the Rent

Controller and this Court, in earlier proceedings, the Respondent

cannot be allowed to once again, resort to the provisions of the Rent

Control Act, to indirectly get a tenancy declaration, in his favour.



18.   Having held that the Rent Controller is vested with the

jurisdiction in prima facie determining the existence of the

landlord-tenant relationship in certain cases, there are mixed and

complex questions of facts and law, relating to the title and

ownership of the premises, involved in the present case. The

Petitioner has canvassed the issue of estoppel and raised an issue of

application of the doctrine of res-judicata as well. It is only the Civil

Court, which can adequately deal with the same and declare the

legal character of the parties. The Judgment and Order impugned

herein, has not considered the factual matrix in the present matter

and has commenced an inquiry to establish the existence of the

relationship between the parties. Considering the complex issue

arising in the present matter, the jurisdiction to decide the

declaration of title and ownership of the premises vests with the

Civil Court. The Order dated 23rd January 2024 passed by the

District Judge-2, South Goa, Margao and the Order dated 11th




                               Page 17 of 18
                               23rd April 2026
                                                             WP NO. 328 OF 2024


                                 October 2022 passed by the Rent Controller impugned herein, are

                                 quashed and set aside.


                                 19.    In view of the aforesaid discussion, the Petition is allowed.

                                 Rule is accordingly, made absolute.


                                 20.    All interim applications stand disposed, in view of the

                                 disposal of the present petition.




                                                                            DR. NEELA GOKHALE, J




                                                                Page 18 of 18
                                                               23rd April 2026



Signed by: ANDREZA RODRIGUES
EPEREIRA
Designation: Senior Private Secretary
to the Hon'ble Judge
Date: 24/04/2026 10:53:02