The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a tenant to establish their tenancy rights under the relevant statutory provisions, and the court's deference to the findings of the lower courts in matters of fact.

JUDGMENT

Dama Seshadri Naidu, J. - Introduction:

A charitable society-a Church-owns some property, a cashew grove. One person was believed to be a tenant; after him, his wife continued to be so. But the Church contends that they were buying the produce and nothing more. They died childless. The petitioner claims to be their adopted son; he set up the tenancy on himself, both as their successor and on his own right. The Primary Authority believed his claim and allowed his application. But the Appellate Authority and the Revisional Authority disbelieved. They reversed the Primary Authority's findings. So this Writ Petition.

2. Has the petitioner established any grounds for this Court to interfere under Article 227 of the Constitution with, what seems to be, concurrent findings of facts?

Facts:

3. Petitioner Premanand Naik claims to be a tenant; the respondent is a charitable society-a church. The Church owns 61,550 sq. meters of cashew grove in Dongri Village. As a matter of history, the state of Goa was under Portuguese rule until 1961, when it was liberated. According to Premanand, in 1955, before liberation, his adoptive father Putu Bozo Naik leased the cashew grove from the Church. As Bozo Naik was without children, he adopted Premanand, his cousin's son, in July 1959.

Two New Pleas:

(a) A Rent Receipt:

4. When Bozo was continuing as a tenant, the state of Goa was liberated and had its agrarian reforms. Of those reforms, one of the earliest enactments was the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 ("the Act"). That legislation covers cashew groves as well. As a tenant, Bozo was said to have been paying the rent to the Church regularly. In fact, Premanand filed on record a copy of the receipt that showed the rent payment from 1963 to 1965. This receipt was produced for the first time before this Court, now, along with the rejoinder.

(b) Auction and Compromise:

5. Premanand also pleads that in August 1965, the Church refused to continue Bozo's tenancy; instead, in October 1965, it auctioned the tenancy rights. In response Bozo complained to the Mamlatdar. And that resulted in a compromise. So the auction was not given effect to. Nevertheless, the Church resists both the rent receipt for three years and the plea of compromise. They were introduced through the rejoinder-for the first time.

Back to Facts:

6. If we resume the facts, Bozo is said to have had his lease renewed in February 1967 and in January 1976. The Church is also said to have received the rent and issued the receipts for these extended periods. Later, on 12 January 1976, soon after the second renewal of the lease, Bozo Naik died.

7. After Bozo Naik's death, his wife Janki continued to be the tenant. She too had the lease renewed in July 1976. A few rent receipts allegedly issued by the Church to Janki are on record. But the Church denies them. According to the Church, both Bozo Naik and his wife, during their lifetime, were only harvesting the produce and paying the sale price for that.

8. The final renewal of the lease in Janki's favour was said to be in December 1981. She died in August 1984. Premanand Naik, as the adopted son, is said to have continued the tenancy. But, to deny him the leasehold rights, the Church forced him to enter into a contract "for the sale of crop", as if he were only purchasing the produce. The record reveals that Premanand and the Church had similar agreements on a couple more occasions. Correspondingly, the Church also issued receipts to Premanand whenever he paid the money for the produce.

(c) Procedural History:

9. As Premanand pleads, in 1993 the Church demanded from Premanand Rs. 15,000 as the price for the sale of crop. Treating this as the Church's attempt to deny his rights of tenancy, on 7 December 1993 Premanand filed Tenancy Application No.49 of 1993 before the Mamlatdar. Besides seeking a declaration of tenancy, Premanand also sought an ex parte temporary injunction. On the very same day, it was granted. Later, o