Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
M.S.Sonak, J.
Janki Raglo Malwankar - Appellant
Versus
Ida Heredia - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 601/2022
Decided On : 21-07-2023
TENANCY - GOA TENANCY ACT - Sec. 7 - The court addressed the jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar under the Goa Tenancy Act, 1964, particularly Section 7, which pertains to declarations of tenancy. The court interpreted that the Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction over the landlord-tenant relationship between the original Applicants and Respondents No. 9 and 10, leading to the conclusion that the deletion of Respondents No. 9 and 10 from the proceedings was appropriate. The court emphasized the importance of natural justice and fair play, ensuring that the rights of all parties were preserved while allowing the original Applicants to pursue their claims.
Fact of the Case:
The Petitioners challenged the orders of the Mamlatdar and Deputy Collector that dismissed their application to delete Respondents No. 9 and 10 from a tenancy case. The Petitioners sought a declaration of tenancy based on alleged admissions by the landlords regarding the property in question.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Mamlatdar had previously ruled that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the Petitioners and Respondents No. 9 and 10, and thus, the Petitioners should be allowed to delete Respondents No. 9 and 10 from the proceedings without prejudice to their rights.
Issues: Whether the Mamlatdar had jurisdiction to adjudicate the relationship between the Petitioners and Respondents No. 9 and 10, and whether the Petitioners could delete Respondents No. 9 and 10 from the tenancy case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Mamlatdar's earlier ruling on jurisdiction was valid and that the deletion of Respondents No. 9 and 10 was appropriate, as it would not prejudice their rights. The court also clarified that any declaration of tenancy based on alleged admissions by the landlords should be addressed in a new application.
Final Decision: The court allowed the Petitioners' application to delete Respondents No. 9 and 10 from the tenancy case and granted liberty to file a fresh application for declaration of tenancy based on alleged admissions, to be disposed of by the Mamlatdar within six months.
JUDGMENT/ORDER
1. Heard Mr Thali for the Petitioner, Mr Sagar Dhargalkar under Legal Aid Scheme for Respondent No.9, Ms Gautami Kamat for Respondent No.10 and Mr Gaonkar for Respondents No.12 and 13.
2. Mr Thali states that all the Respondents have been duly served. Accordingly, Rule. Considering the orders made earlier, including order dtd. 7/7/2023, the Rule is heard finally at the stage of admission.
3. The challenge in this Petition is to the orders dtd. 25/11/2013 and 12/07/2020 made by the Mamlatdar and the Deputy Collector, respectively, dismissing the Petitioners' application to delete Respondents No.9 and 10 as parties in Tenancy Case No.JM-II/TNC/13/2001. The Applicants had also applied for a declaration based upon some alleged admission on behalf of the landlords.
4. The record bears out that the Petitioners and Respondents No.11, 12, and 13 (original Applicants) applied for a declaration of tenancy under Sec. 7 of the Goa Tenancy Act,1964 (said Act), concerning the property bearing survey Nos. 30/1 and 30/3 of village Narve, Bicholim Taluka (suit property) before the Mamlatdar of Bicholim. The same was registered as Tenancy Case No. JM-II/TNC/13/2001.
5. The Application was filed against Respondents No.1 to 8 (Landlords). Further, even Respondents 9 and 10 were impleaded as parties since an injunction was sought against them. The predecessor-in-title of the Petitioners was the brother of Respondents No.9 and 10.
6. The Joint Mamlatdar, by order dtd. 18/6/2002, dismissed the prayer for an injunction against Respondents No.9 and 10, holding that the Mamlatdar had no jurisdiction since there was no relationship of tenant-landlord between the predecessor-in-title of the Petitioners and Respondents No.9 and 10. Therefore, the Petitioners instituted Special Civil Suit No.23/2002/A and sought an injunction against Respondents 9 and 10. A decree was made in the said Suit, which the First Appellate Court confirmed.
7. On 23/8/2006, the original Applicants (including the Petitioners) filed an application seeking the following reliefs in the tenancy case.
8. By an order dtd. 25/11/2013, the Mamlatdar dismissed the application dtd. 23/8/2006. By an order dtd. 12/7/2022, the Deputy Collector upheld Mamlatdar's order dtd. 25/11/2013. These are the orders impugned in the present Petition.
9. The Mamlatdar, by his order dtd. 18/6/2002, declined the original Applicants any injunction against Respondents No.9 and 10, holding that he had no jurisdiction to do so. The Mamlatdar had reasoned that there was no landlord-tenant relationship between the original Applicants and Respondents No.9 and 10. This order was never challenged by Respondents No.9 and
10. and, perhaps, correctly because even Respondents No.9 and 10 do not claim any landlord-tenant relationship with the Applicants. Respondents No.9 and 10 only contend that even they are the tenants of the suit property along with the original Applicants. 10. Therefore, the Mamlatdar was not right in not allowing the original Applicants to delete Respondents No.9 and 10. Such a deletion would, obviously, be at the risk and consequences of the original Applicants. After seeking such deletion, the original Applicants cannot use the order they might obtain in the Tenancy Case No. JM-II/TNC/13/2001 against Respondents No.9 and 10. Such an order will not bind Respondents No. 9 and 10 if Respondents No.9 and 10 take out independent proceedings to assert their alleged right in the suit property. With this clarification, the application for deletion of Respondent No.9 and 10 should have been allowed. In such matters, the original Applicants cannot be forced to take out proceedings or continue proceedings against some of their relatives, mainly since the Mamlatdar had already held that he w
The principle of res judicata applies to proceedings before quasi-judicial authorities, and subsequent applications cannot be entertained if the claim has been rejected in a previous order.
The jurisdiction of Civil Courts is barred in matters concerning tenancy rights that are to be decided by the Mamlatdar under the Agricultural Tenancy Act, particularly when the relief sought is a ne....
The court upheld the Tribunal's decision affirming tenant rights based on longstanding possession and admissions, indicating the strength of historical claims in tenancy disputes under the Tenancy Ac....
The court affirmed that the protected tenant's rights under the Tenancy Act cannot be overridden by private agreements or settlements that do not comply with statutory requirements.
A judgment obtained by fraud is a nullity and can be challenged at any time. Fraud and justice cannot coexist, and those approaching the court must do so with clean hands.
The court affirmed that previous decrees extinguished the appellants' tenancy rights, and their subsequent claims constituted an abuse of legal process.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
