Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, legal heirs of original defendants in Civil Suit No. 107 of 1970, filed a writ petition challenging the order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the Additional President, Administrative Tribunal, Goa, in Mundkar Revision Application No. 2 of 1996. The suit was filed by the original plaintiff (now deceased, represented by respondents) for eviction of the defendants from House No. 43/9, Survey No.159/9, Candolim, Goa. The petitioners claimed that the suit was motivated by a grudge because they had lodged a criminal complaint under Section 295 IPC against the respondents, resulting in their conviction. The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendants filed a revision application before the Administrative Tribunal under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975. The Additional President dismissed the revision application, confirming the eviction order. The petitioners then approached the High Court. The court heard the matter and dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioners failed to show any error in the concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of a mundkar tenancy and default in payment of rent. The court found no perversity or illegality in the impugned order and upheld the dismissal of the revision application. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Mundkar Tenancy - Eviction - Concurrent Findings - The petitioners challenged the order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the Additional President, Administrative Tribunal, Goa, in Mundkar Revision Application No. 2 of 1996, which confirmed the eviction decree in Civil Suit No. 107 of 1970. The court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of a mundkar tenancy and default in payment of rent. The revision court's order was upheld as it did not suffer from any jurisdictional error. (Paras 2-5)
B) Mundkar Tenancy - Res Judicata - The court noted that the issue of tenancy had been finally decided in earlier proceedings and could not be re-agitated. The petitioners' contention that the suit was filed out of grudge due to a criminal complaint under Section 295 IPC was not substantiated. (Paras 3-4)
C) Mundkar Tenancy - Limitation - The revision application was filed in 1996 against a decree passed in 1970, but the court did not find any bar of limitation as the matter was pending before the Tribunal. The court upheld the order dismissing the revision application. (Paras 2-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Additional President, Administrative Tribunal, Goa, erred in dismissing the Mundkar Revision Application and confirming the eviction order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, in Civil Suit No. 107 of 1970.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the Additional President, Administrative Tribunal, Goa, in Mundkar Revision Application No. 2 of 1996. The rule was discharged with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Mundkar tenancy
- eviction decree
- res judicata
- concurrent findings
- limitation
- revision jurisdiction
- Goa
- Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act
- 1975
- Section 295 IPC
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (04) 88
Writ Petition No. 583 of 2015
Mr. Nitin Sardesai, Senior Advocate, with Advocate Ms. Suzette Pereira for the Petitioners; Mr. R.G. Ramani Advocate for the Respondents
Ramkrishna P. Kandolkar, Smt. Nalini Ramkrishna Kandolkar, Ankush Harmalkar, Smt. Jaishree Ankush Harmalkar, Raja Purushottam Kandolkar, Subhash Purushottam Kandolkar, Chitraranga Purushottam Kandolkar
Peter Paul D'Souza (since deceased) through Legal Representatives: Lydia D'Souza, Fatima D'Souza, Julieta D'Souza, Olinda D'Souza, Camilo D'Souza, Mario D'Souza, Sabrina D'Souza
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the order of the Additional President, Administrative Tribunal, Goa, dismissing the Mundkar Revision Application and confirming the eviction decree in Civil Suit No. 107 of 1970.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners sought to quash and set aside the order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the Additional President, Administrative Tribunal, Goa, in Mundkar Revision Application No. 2 of 1996.
Filing Reason
The petitioners claimed that the eviction suit was filed out of grudge due to a criminal complaint under Section 295 IPC lodged by them against the respondents, and that the impugned order was illegal and incorrect.
Previous Decisions
The Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, decreed Civil Suit No. 107 of 1970 in favor of the plaintiff. The Additional President, Administrative Tribunal, Goa, dismissed Mundkar Revision Application No. 2 of 1996 on 14.01.2015, confirming the eviction order.
Issues
Whether the Additional President, Administrative Tribunal, Goa, erred in dismissing the Mundkar Revision Application and confirming the eviction order.
Whether the petitioners could challenge the concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of a mundkar tenancy and default in payment of rent.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioners argued that the suit was filed out of grudge because they had lodged a criminal complaint under Section 295 IPC against the respondents, and that the impugned order was illegal and incorrect.
The respondents supported the impugned order and submitted that the concurrent findings of fact were based on evidence and did not warrant interference.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of fact regarding the existence of a mundkar tenancy and default in payment of rent. The revision court's order was upheld as it did not suffer from any jurisdictional error.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition, the petitioners are challenging the legality and correctness of the order dated 14.01.2015 passed by the Additional President, Administrative Tribunal, Goa, in Mundkar Revision Application No. 2 of 1996.
The petitioners are the legal heirs of original defendant nos.1 and 2 in the suit filed for eviction against the original defendants 1 and 2 and the respondents are the legal heirs of deceased original plaintiff.
Procedural History
Civil Suit No. 107 of 1970 was filed by the original plaintiff before the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mapusa, Goa, seeking eviction of the defendants from House No. 43/9, Survey No.159/9, Candolim. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff. The defendants filed Mundkar Revision Application No. 2 of 1996 before the Administrative Tribunal, Goa, which was dismissed by the Additional President on 14.01.2015. The petitioners then filed Writ Petition No. 583 of 2015 before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Panaji Bench, Goa, which was dismissed on 18.04.2016.
Acts & Sections
- Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975:
- Indian Penal Code: 295
