A rent-control statute is only as effective as the machinery that operationalises it. The substantive rights under the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968 — protection from eviction, fair rent, the right to deposit — would remain inert without the procedural scaffolding supplied by the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1969. Framed under Section 58 of the Act by Revenue Department Notification RD/BLDG/77/69-I, these fifteen compact rules govern how vacancy notices are given, how a tenant deposits rent, what court fees attach to each proceeding, how the Controller and the appellate fora conduct enquiries, and how an eviction order is finally executed. For the judiciary and CLAT-PG aspirant, the Rules are a textbook study in delegated legislation that supplements — never supplants — its parent Act.
Source: Section 58 and the limits of delegated legislation
The Rules draw their entire vitality from Section 58 of the Act, which empowers the Government (originally the Administrator of the Union Territory of Goa, Daman and Diu) to make rules for carrying out the purposes of the Act. The 1969 Rules open by reciting this power: “In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 58 … the Administrator … hereby makes the following Rules.” Because every rule is a creature of Section 58, none may travel beyond the Act. This is the settled doctrine of delegated legislation: in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE, (2003) 3 SCC 321, the Supreme Court held that “rules cannot be made to supplant the provisions of the enabling Act but to supplement it,” and a delegate must act strictly within the limits of authority conferred by the parent statute. The Court there emphasised that the power to make subordinate legislation is derived from the enabling Act and that the delegate cannot enlarge or restrict the scope of what the legislature has enacted. The principle was reaffirmed in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Thomas Joseph, 2022 INSC 1293, where the Court struck down a regulation of the Kerala Electricity Supply Code as ultra vires for being inconsistent with the parent statute, holding squarely that delegated legislation which is ultra vires the parent Act cannot be given any effect. Read together, these authorities supply the interpretive yardstick for the 1969 Rules: any provision — for instance a deadline shorter than the Act allows, or a rule purporting to add a fresh ground of eviction — would be void to that extent and unenforceable, and the Rules must always be construed harmoniously with, and subordinate to, the Act. The framing context is explained in our introduction and object note.
Structure and scheme of the 1969 Rules
The Rules comprise fifteen rules and four appended Forms. Rule 1 supplies the short title (“the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Rules, 1969”) and provides that they come into force at once. Rule 2 is the definition clause: “Act” means the 1968 Act, “Form” means a form appended to the Rules, “Section” means a section of the Act, and words not defined in the Rules carry the meaning assigned in the Act — a standard incorporation-by-reference device that keeps the statutory definitions controlling. The remaining rules track the Act's chronology: vacancy and requisition (Rules 3–4), deposit of rent (Rules 5–8), procedure before the authorities (Rules 9–12), execution (Rule 13), court fees (Rule 14) and lease-deed filing (Rule 15). The drafting is deliberately spare, leaving substantive discretion to the Act and to the borrowed civil procedure described below. This minimalism is itself a feature: by not duplicating the Act's substantive provisions, the Rules avoid the risk of inconsistency that would render them ultra vires, and they instead confine themselves to the mechanics — forms, fees, timelines and modes of service — that a parent statute typically leaves to delegated legislation. The numbering also mirrors the litigant's journey: a tenancy is created and a lease deed filed, a building falls vacant and is requisitioned, rent is paid or deposited, disputes are adjudicated, appeals and revisions are pursued, and possession is finally taken.
Vacancy notice and requisition: Rules 3 and 4
Rule 3 prescribes the manner of the vacancy notice that a landlord must give under Section 4(2). The notice must be in writing in Form I and must contain the particulars listed there — the landlord's name and address, the manager (if any), the house number and address, a brief description of the accommodation (number of rooms, their use and floor), the reasons for and circumstances of the vacancy, the fair rent if already fixed, and, for buildings first let before January 1965, the rent payable on 1-1-1965. The landlord may either hand the notice personally to the Authorised Officer against a written receipt or send it by registered post with acknowledgement due. Rule 4 then provides that the Authorised Officer issues the order under Section 6(1) — the order requisitioning a vacant building for Government, a local authority or a public institution — in Form II, which was substituted by the Amendment Rules, 1975. Together these rules drive the requisition machinery for vacant buildings.
Deposit of rent: Rules 5 to 8
Four rules operationalise a tenant's right to deposit rent rather than risk forfeiting it. Rule 5 governs the ordinary deposit under Section 18(1) — available where there is bona fide doubt about who is entitled to the rent, where the landlord's address is unknown, or where the landlord refuses to accept rent. The tenant applies to the Controller (personally or through an authorised agent); the Controller orders the named Treasury Office to accept the deposit and countersigns the challan in triplicate; the tenant deposits accordingly; and the Controller then issues an order in Form III to the landlord or claimant. Rule 6 lets the Controller, once satisfied of entitlement, order payment of the deposit out, but only after the claimant signs an indemnity bond protecting Government against rival claims. Rule 7 deals with the distinct deposit under Section 32 — the protective deposit a tenant facing eviction must make: arrears due are deposited within one month of first notice of the eviction proceedings before the Controller (or the appellate or revisional authority), and rent subsequently falling due within fifteen days of becoming payable, with sub-rules (1)–(3) of Rule 5 applying mutatis mutandis. Rule 8 sets the conditions for the landlord to withdraw a Section 32(5) deposit: proof of entitlement, a receipt to the tenant, and an indemnity bond.
Procedure and borrowed jurisdiction: Rule 9
Rule 9 is the procedural heart of the scheme. Sub-rule (1) requires every enquiry before the Controller or Rent Tribunal to be commenced by an application stating the prescribed particulars: the name, age, profession and residence of applicant and opponent; a short description and location of the building; the circumstances giving rise to the cause of action; the specific prayer; and a list of the applicant's documents and witnesses. Crucially, sub-rule (2) borrows wholesale from another statute — the Controller and Rent Tribunal “shall exercise the same powers as the Mamlatdar under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdars' Court Act, 1966, and shall follow the provisions of the said Act as if the Controller or the Rent Tribunal were a Mamlatdar's Court … and the application presented was a plaint under Section 7 of the said Act.” Sub-rule (3) gives the Appellate Board the powers and procedure of an appellate court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and sub-rule (4) routes Administrative Tribunal appeals and revisions through the Goa, Daman and Diu Administrative Tribunal Act, 1965. This layered borrowing means a litigant must read the Rules alongside two further procedural codes.
Service, ex-parte orders and legal representatives: Rules 10 to 12
Rule 10 governs service: every notice or order under the Act may be served by tendering or delivering a copy, by registered post A/D to the person or his authorised agent, or — where such service cannot be effected — by affixing a copy at the person's last known residence. Rule 11 supplies the remedy against ex-parte orders: a person against whom an ex-parte order is passed may apply within thirty days, pleading unavoidable circumstances that prevented appearance; the authority issues notice in Form IV at that party's expense and, if satisfied after hearing, may restore the case. Rule 12 codifies the abatement-and-substitution regime for deceased parties — substitution of legal representatives on application within sixty days of death, abatement on default, determination of who is a legal representative, no abatement once hearing has concluded, and the express application of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to an application to set aside abatement or dismissal. These rules import familiar CPC concepts into the rent-control forum.
Execution of possession orders: Rule 13
Rule 13 prescribes how an order of the Controller or the Administrative Tribunal directing possession or eviction is enforced. The Controller may authorise a subordinate officer in writing to take possession. That officer must, between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m., visit the building and give written intimation to the occupant (and to the landlord, if residing nearby) that possession will be taken after twenty-four hours unless vacant possession is handed over earlier; thereafter he may use reasonable force and, after giving warning and facility to any woman not appearing in public per local custom, break open locks or doors. Sub-rule (4) requires a panchanama of any furniture or articles not part of the permanent fixtures, which are locked in one room and sealed; sub-rule (5) requires a notice pasted on the building calling on the owner to claim and remove the articles within one month, failing which they may be auctioned and the proceeds credited to Government. This procedural safeguard governs the sharp end of an eviction on the statutory grounds.
Court fees: Rule 14
Rule 14 is the most frequently consulted of the Rules in practice because it fixes the price of access to each forum. Every application to the Controller or the Rent Tribunal bears a court-fee stamp of Rs. 12; every memorandum of appeal to the Appellate Board or the Administrative Tribunal bears Rs. 50; every revision application bears Rs. 25; and every application for stay of eviction or of an order under appeal or revision bears Rs. 5. Sub-rule (4) carves out a welfare concession: where the application, appeal or revision is made by a member of a Scheduled Caste (Part III of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes) Order, 1950) or a Scheduled Tribe (Part III of the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950), the court fee is reduced to one-third of the amounts above. These figures are the surviving 1969 schedule; aspirants should treat them as the rule text rather than as current revised tariffs. The graduated structure is instructive for an examiner: it values original adjudication least, treats appeals and revisions as costlier discretionary remedies, and prices interlocutory stay applications nominally so that a tenant facing eviction is not priced out of seeking protection while the merits are decided. The Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe concession in sub-rule (4) reflects the access-to-justice concern that animates rent-control legislation generally, ensuring that the procedural gateway does not defeat the protective substance of the Act for the most economically vulnerable litigants.
Lease-deed filing: Rule 15
Rule 15 closes the scheme by requiring that a copy of every lease deed executed under Section 35 be sent by the landlord to the Controller within fifteen days of execution. This filing requirement feeds the Controller's record of tenancies and dovetails with the Act's insistence on written lease deeds for buildings let after commencement. It is a small but important compliance obligation: it gives the Controller documentary footing when later questions of standard rent or lawful increases arise, matters dealt with in our notes on standard rent fixation and revision and lawful increases in rent.
The appended Forms
The Rules append four Forms, each tied to a specific rule. Form I (see Rule 3) is the landlord's vacancy notice to the Authorised Officer, capturing the particulars of the vacant building. Form II (see Rule 4), substituted by the Amendment Rules, 1975, is the Authorised Officer's requisition order under Section 6, reciting the Section 4 / Section 5 notice and directing the landlord to hand over possession within the stated days to the empowered officer. Form III (see Rule 5(4)) is the Controller's order on a tenant's deposit under Section 18(2), calling on the claimant to appear and prove entitlement. Form IV (see Rule 11) is the notice issued to reopen an ex-parte order. These standardised instruments ensure that the procedural steps generate a consistent, auditable record across the State.
Amendments and exam significance
The Rules have seen limited amendment: the Amendment Rules, 1975 (Official Gazette, Series I No. 41 dated 6-1-1977) substituted the word “or” in Rule 7(1), inserted the sixty-day window in Rule 12(3), and substituted Form II. For examiners, the 1969 Rules are valuable precisely because they illustrate how a state rent-control regime stitches together its Controller, Rent Tribunal, Appellate Board and Administrative Tribunal using borrowed procedure from the Mamlatdars' Court Act, 1966, the CPC, 1908 and the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1965. They also offer a clean vehicle for the ultra-vires doctrine: applying St. Johns Teachers Training Institute and Kerala State Electricity Board v. Thomas Joseph, any rule purporting to expand the eviction grounds or curtail the deposit protections of the Act would fall. A study of these Rules therefore reinforces both the procedural anatomy of the Goa statute and the constitutional discipline that confines subordinate legislation. Return to the subject hub for the full set of related notes.
Frequently asked questions
Under which provision are the Goa Buildings Rent Control Rules, 1969 made?
They are made under Section 58 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Buildings (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act, 1968, by Revenue Department Notification RD/BLDG/77/69-I. Being delegated legislation, they may only supplement, not supplant, the parent Act, as held in St. Johns Teachers Training Institute v. Regional Director, NCTE, (2003) 3 SCC 321.
How does a tenant deposit rent under the Rules?
Under Rule 5 (for a Section 18(1) deposit) the tenant applies to the Controller, who orders the Treasury Office to accept the deposit and countersigns the challan in triplicate; the Controller then issues Form III to the landlord or claimant. A protective deposit during eviction proceedings is governed separately by Rule 7, which implements Section 32.
What court fees do the Rules prescribe?
Rule 14 fixes Rs. 12 for an application to the Controller or Rent Tribunal, Rs. 50 for a memorandum of appeal to the Appellate Board or Administrative Tribunal, Rs. 25 for a revision application, and Rs. 5 for a stay application. Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe applicants pay one-third of these amounts.
What procedure do the Controller and Rent Tribunal follow?
Under Rule 9, every enquiry begins with an application stating prescribed particulars, and the Controller and Rent Tribunal exercise the same powers and follow the procedure of a Mamlatdar's Court under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mamlatdars' Court Act, 1966, treating the application as a plaint under Section 7 of that Act. The Appellate Board follows CPC appellate procedure.
How is an eviction or possession order executed under the Rules?
Rule 13 lets the Controller authorise a subordinate officer to take possession between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. after twenty-four hours' written intimation, using reasonable force if needed. Furniture not part of the fixtures is recorded in a panchanama, sealed, and if unclaimed within one month may be auctioned, with proceeds credited to Government.
Can a rule under the 1969 Rules override the 1968 Act?
No. A rule that is inconsistent with or travels beyond the parent Act is ultra vires and void to that extent. The Supreme Court reiterated this in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Thomas Joseph, 2022 INSC 1293, holding that delegated legislation inconsistent with the parent statute cannot be given any effect.