Ana Rosalina D Souza (Deceased) Rep. By Her Legal Hiers vs. Gracy D Souza

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 $(@$ SLP(C) NO. 12952/2023)

ANA ROSALINA D' SOUZA (DECEASED)<br>REP. BY HER LEGAL HEIRS<br>VERSUS	$\ldots\ldots$	APPELLANTS

ORDER

$1.$ Leave granted.

$\overline{2}$ The appellants – legal heirs of the deceased landlady are aggrieved by the judgment dated 05^th April, 2023, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, at Goa, wherein the respondent No.1-tenant had laid a challenge to the judgment dated 29^th May, 2012, passed by the Administrative Tribunal Goa¹, in an Eviction Appeal², whereby the Tribunal had dismissed the appeal filed by the respondent no.1-tenant, who had challenged the order dated 28^th March. 1996, passed by the Additional Rent Controller, Mapusa, under Section 23(3) of the Goa Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1968. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge had set aside the order passed by the Tribunal on drawing a conclusion that there was an unreasonable delay in delivering the judgment that had prejudiced the respondent no.1-

tenant. The matter was directed to be remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh hearing on ASHARITS.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment $\mathfrak{F}$

<span id="page-0-0"></span>For short the 'Tribunal' $\mathbf{1}$

<span id="page-0-1"></span> $\overline{2}$ No. 175 of 2003 as also the records and are of the opinion that the sole reason which weighed with the High Court to remand the matter back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration was the unreasonable delay in delivering the judgment. Otherwise, no fault has been found in the judgment of the Tribunal on merits.

4. That being the position, in our opinion, it is not a fit case where the matter ought to have been remanded to the Tribunal, particularly, when the litigation in the instant case had commenced sometime in the year 1983 and had concluded in an eviction order suffered by the respondent No.1-tenant in the year 1996. The proceedings subsequent to the year 2013 are all as a result of an execution petition filed by the appellant-landlady. Accordingly, the impugned judgment is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the High Court for a fresh hearing on merits, followed by a decision. The High Court is requested to dispose of the matter preferably by the end of December, 2023.

5. Needless to state that the parties are at liberty to take all the pleas that they had already taken in the pleadings before the High Court, which shall be considered and decided in accordance with law. Parties shall appear before the learned Single Judge on 06th September, 2023.

6. The appeal is allowed on the above terms.

7. Pending application is disposed of.

……………...................J. (HIMA KOHLI)

..………………...............J. (RAJESH BINDAL)

NEW DELHI; AUGUST 22, 2023. PS

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 12952/2023

(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 05-04-2023 in WP No. 16/2013 passed by the High Court Of Judicature At Bombay At Goa)

ANA ROSALINA D SOUZA (DECEASED) REP. BY HER LEGAL HEIRS PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS

GRACY D SOUZA & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)

(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No.120857/2023-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT )

• Date : 22-08-2023 This petition was called on for hearing today.
• CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
• For Petitioner(s) Mr. M. L. Lahoty, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Shekhar, AOR Mr. Paban K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anchit Sripat, Adv. Mr. Pranab Kumar Nayak, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv.

For Respondent(s)

Mr. Devadatt Kamat, Sr. Adv. Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, AOR Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Dhawal Zaveri, Adv. Mr. Revanta Solanki, Adv. Mr. Saswat Adhyapak, Adv. Mr. Ankit Kumar, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel, the Court made the following O R D E R

• 1. Leave granted.
• 2. The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order, which is placed on the file.

(POOJA SHARMA) (NAND KISHOR) COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)

ITEM NO.50 COURT NO.11 SECTION IX