Case Note & Summary
The case involves a dispute between the plaintiff, Mrs. Rosario Boventura Fernandes, and the defendant, Shri Indrakant Shankar Mambro, over a parcel of land in Assonora, Goa. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was allowed to use the land under a written License Agreement dated 03.10.1988 for erecting a temporary wooden shed to sell cold drinks, for two years, at a license fee of Rs.100 per month. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant breached the agreement by making permanent modifications and defaulted on payments from January 1989. The defendant contended that he was a tenant under the Goa Rent Control Act, having occupied the land for about 20 years under an oral agreement, paying rent initially at Rs.12 per month, later increased to Rs.60, and that the written agreement was executed at the plaintiff's request. The trial court framed issue no. 5 regarding the defendant's plea of 20-year oral tenancy. The trial court found that the defendant failed to lead convincing evidence to prove the oral tenancy; documents produced did not refer to the stall or show its existence for 20 years. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant appealed to the High Court. The High Court upheld the trial court's findings, noting that the written agreement of license was a contemporaneous document and the defendant's evidence was insufficient to prove an oral tenancy. The court dismissed the second appeal, confirming that the relationship was that of licensor and licensee, and the civil court had jurisdiction.
Headnote
A) Property Law - License vs. Tenancy - Distinction between License and Lease - Goa Rent Control Act, 1964 - The court considered whether the defendant's occupation of a parcel of land was as a tenant or a licensee. The plaintiff claimed the defendant was a licensee under a written agreement dated 03.10.1988, while the defendant alleged an oral tenancy for 20 years. The court held that the written agreement of license, being a contemporaneous document, outweighed the defendant's uncorroborated oral evidence. The defendant failed to prove the existence of an oral tenancy. (Paras 3-6) B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Burden of Proof - Section 101 - The defendant bore the burden to prove the alleged oral tenancy. The court found that the defendant did not lead convincing or cogent evidence. Documents produced by the defendant did not refer to the stall or show its existence for 20 years. Therefore, the defendant failed to discharge the burden. (Para 6) C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Jurisdiction - Section 9 - The civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit as the relationship was that of licensor and licensee, not landlord and tenant. The defendant's plea of tenancy under the Goa Rent Control Act was rejected. (Paras 4-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the defendant was a tenant under the Goa Rent Control Act or a licensee under a written agreement, and whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed. The judgment and decree of the trial court are confirmed. The defendant is held to be a licensee, not a tenant, and the civil court had jurisdiction.
Law Points
- License vs. Tenancy
- Burden of Proof
- Oral Tenancy
- Written Agreement
- Goa Rent Control Act
- Section 9 CPC
- Section 101 Evidence Act
