JUDGMENT

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties the matter is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

2. The petitioner is hereby challenging the judgment and order dtd. 18/10/2019 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal in Mundkar Revision Application No.17/2018 wherein the learned Tribunal rejected revision and confirmed the impugned judgment passed by the authorities below.

3. An interesting question cropped up in the present petition which reads thus:

"Whether a person who was lawfully inducted in the house after the appointed date and had a fixed habitation, can claim mundkarship?"

FACTS OF THE CASE:-

4. In nutshell, few facts which led to the present petition are thus:

5. The property known as 'GOLNA' survey No.39/5 exist in village Pomburpa at ward Golna. There is residential house in this property bearing No.41/5. Originally this property was belonging to Rev. Fr. Pactricio Sequiera who was also known as Patrick Sequeira. The said Patric Sequeira was a clergyman and therefore a bachelor. He expired on 22/10/2002. The petitioner is the nephew of the said Patrick Sequeira. The respondent Victor Sequiera is the brother of the petitioner and also a nephew of said Patrick.

6. It is specific case of the petitioner that Fr. Patrick Sequeira inducted the petitioner in the said house on 31/12/1989 and since then the petitioner along with his family members is residing and occupying the said house and also enjoying the suit property. Subsequently, the respondent/brother of the petitioner by name Victor, claiming ownership of the said house on account of a Will dtd. 18/11/1993 executed by Fr. Patrick Sequeira in his favour, filed a suit bearing Regular Civil Suit No. 108/2003 claiming relief of permanent and mandatory injunction against the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Civil Court and filed his written statement thereby raising a plea of mundkarship. Accordingly, the learned Civil Court framed the issue of mundkarship and referred it to the Mamlatdar of Bardez at Mapusa.

7. The Joint Mamlatdar - III of Bardez, Mapusa vide its judgment dtd. 23/06/2015 answered the issue of mundkarship in negative. The petitioner therefore filed an appeal before the Deputy Collector and SDO, Mapusa. The said appeal was dismissed vide judgment and order dtd. 18/07/2018, thereby confirming the order of the learned Joint Mamlatdar. The petitioner thereafter preferred a revision before the Administrative Tribunal who by its impugned judgment and order dated 18/10/20919 rejected the revision thereby confirming the orders of the authorities who negated the claim of mundkarship of the petitioner.

SUBMISSIONS OF THE PETITIONERS:-

8. Mr Usgaonkar, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner first of all claimed that all the authorities erred in concluding that since the petitioner was not inducted prior to 1976, when the Mundkar Act came into force, such claim cannot be entertained. He forcefully submitted that after the amendment of 1976, there was a major change in the definition of

"Mundkar" which clearly goes to show that there was no prohibition of creating mundkarship or inducting any person as mundkar by the landlord even after the Act came into force. According to him, the conditions incorporated in the Act required to be fulfilled. Firstly, mundkar must have fixed habitation. He is not covered under the exceptions and that the landlord has inducted him in the house. He then stated that once these conditions are fulfilled and the petitioner is not coming with in the exceptions, there is restrictions to eviction of mundkar and a Civil Court will not have jurisdiction to grant any relief.

9. Mr Usgaonkar then would submit that apart from Goa, there is similar concept of mundkar in Kerala. He would submit that there is absolutely no prohibition for inducting in person as mundkar subsequent to the said Act of 1976 coming into force. In this respec