Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute over a property in Nuvem, Goa. The original plaintiff, Fr. Caitano Piedade Santana Cardoz, filed a suit against the defendant, Francis Borges, seeking compensation for use and occupation, demolition of a shed, cancellation of an agreement dated 4/6/1990, and eviction. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was a licensee under the agreement, while the defendant contended he was a tenant since 1986 under the Rent Control Act. The trial court framed issues and, after examining witnesses, held that the defendant was a tenant from 1986, dismissing the suit. The first appellate court affirmed this finding. The plaintiffs (legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff) appealed to the High Court in second appeal. The High Court, per Justice A.P. Lavande, held that there was no substantial question of law, as the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence. The court noted that the defendant had been in possession for over 15 years and paid rent, which established tenancy. The agreement of 1990 did not change his status. The second appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Rent Control - Tenancy vs. License - Burden of Proof - The defendant claimed tenancy from 1986, while the plaintiff alleged a license agreement in 1990. The court held that the defendant proved his tenancy by showing long possession and payment of rent, and the agreement did not convert his status to a licensee. The burden was on the plaintiff to prove the agreement was a license, which he failed to discharge. (Paras 2-4)
B) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Scope - The High Court in second appeal cannot re-appreciate evidence unless there is a substantial question of law. The concurrent findings of fact by the trial court and first appellate court that the defendant was a tenant were binding. (Para 1)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the defendant was a tenant or a licensee under the agreement dated 4/6/1990, and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to eviction and compensation.
Final Decision
Second Appeal dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Tenancy rights
- License vs. Tenancy
- Rent Control Act protection
- Burden of proof on landlord
- Agreement cannot override existing tenancy
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (09) 96
Second Appeal No.53 of 2001
Ms. S. Mordekar for Appellants, Mr. S.S. Kakodkar for Respondent
Godfree Cardozo, Felix Cardozo, Viva Cardozo or Biserla Megerle, Gladys Cardozo, Mary Cardozo, Benjamim Cardozo, Amita Cardozo, Annie Cardozo, Anthony (Antonio) Cardozo, Fr. Caitano Cardozo, Leopoldina Cardozo, Peter Joanes, Liberio Cardozo (Mariano Liberio Cardozo), Bella Cardozo
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil suit for eviction, compensation, and cancellation of agreement
Remedy Sought
Plaintiffs sought compensation, demolition of shed, cancellation of agreement, and eviction of defendant
Filing Reason
Defendant failed to pay compensation under agreement and continued occupation
Previous Decisions
Trial Court dismissed suit holding defendant as tenant; First Appellate Court affirmed
Issues
Whether the defendant was a tenant or a licensee under the agreement dated 4/6/1990
Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to eviction and compensation
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued that the defendant was a licensee under the agreement and failed to pay compensation
Respondent argued that he was a tenant since 1986 under the Rent Control Act
Ratio Decidendi
The defendant proved his tenancy from 1986 by showing long possession and payment of rent; the agreement of 1990 did not convert his status to a licensee. The concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were binding in second appeal.
Judgment Excerpts
By this appeal the appellants takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 8/3/2001 passed by the District Judge, South Goa, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 87/1999 dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree 3/8/1999 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Margao in Regular Civil Suit no.193/92/C.
The defendant resisted the suit and he claimed that he was in possession and in occupation of the property mentioned in the agreement for the last about 15 years as tenant.
Procedural History
Original suit filed in 1992 by Fr. Caitano Piedade Santana Cardoz. Trial Court dismissed suit on 3/8/1999. First appeal dismissed on 8/3/2001. Second appeal filed in 2001, dismissed on 30/9/2010.
Acts & Sections
