Back
1967 Supreme(Goa) 27
Goa High Court
R.S.BINDRA
Govind Gopal Shenvi Sakordekar - Appellant
Versus
Revenue Secy. to Govt. of Goa, Daman and Diu, Panaji - Respondent
Decided On : 12/06/1967
U.B. Surlikar, for Petitioner; S.V. Joshi, for Respondents Nos. 5 to 7.
Section 58(2) of the Goa, Daman, and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1964, which barred the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters required to be settled by the authorities under the Act, was retrospective in operation and applied to pending proceedings.
Headnote:
TENANCY ACT - SECTION 58(2) - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT - JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURT - RES JUDICATA - TERMINATION OF TENANCY - PROCEDURE - SECTION 8(2) - RESTORATION OF POSSESSION - SECTION 18(1) - SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS - WRIT PETITION DISMISSED.:
Fact of the Case:
A dispute arose between a landlord and a tenant over the eviction of the tenant from agricultural land. The landlord filed a suit in the Civil Court seeking eviction on grounds of non-payment of rent, destruction of boundary marks, and usurpation of property by neighboring owners. The Civil Court ordered eviction in 1965, but the tenant did not appeal the decision. Meanwhile, the Goa, Daman, and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1964 (Tenancy Act) came into force, which provided for the restoration of possession to evicted tenants. The tenant applied to the Mamlatdar under the Tenancy Act for restoration of possession, but the application was rejected on the ground that the Civil Court's decree operated as res judicata. The tenant appealed to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal and then to the Revenue Secretary, who allowed the appeal and ordered the restoration of possession to the tenant.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that Section 58(2) of the Tenancy Act, which barred the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in matters required to be settled by the authorities under the Act, was retrospective in operation and applied to pending proceedings. Therefore, the Civil Court's decree of eviction was without jurisdiction and did not operate as res judicata. The Court further held that the tenant was entitled to restoration of possession under Section 8(2) of the Tenancy Act, as he was a tenant within the meaning of Section 4 and had been evicted after July 1, 1962. The Court also held that the Mamlatdar had jurisdiction to determine the question of tenancy under Section 7 of the Tenancy Act.
Issues: 1. Whether Section 58(2) of the Tenancy Act was retrospective in operation and applied to pending proceedings. 2. Whether the Civil Court's decree of eviction operated as res judicata. 3. Whether the tenant was entitled to restoration of possession under Section 8(2) of the Tenancy Act. 4. Whether the Mamlatdar had jurisdiction to determine the question of tenancy.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Section 58(2) of the Tenancy Act was retrospective in operation and applied to pending proceedings based on the following reasoning: a) The language of Section 58(2) clearly indicated that it was intended to operate retrospectively. b) Section 3(3) of the Tenancy Act provided that the provisions of the Act would apply to all tenancies of agricultural land notwithstanding any other law, decree, or order of a court. c) The legislature's intent to make the provisions of the Tenancy Act retrospective was further supported by the fact that specific provisions were included in other statutes to save pending proceedings from the operation of those statutes, but no such provision was included in the Tenancy Act. 2. The Court held that the Civil Court's decree of eviction did not operate as res judicata because the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the matter after the Tenancy Act came into force. 3. The Court held that the tenant was entitled to restoration of possession under Section 8(2) of the Tenancy Act because he was a tenant within the meaning of Section 4 and had been evicted after July 1, 1962. 4. The Court held that the Mamlatdar had jurisdiction to determine the question of tenancy under Section 7 of the Tenancy Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition filed by the landlord challenging the order of the Revenue Secretary was dismissed with costs.
2. One Baguiroti Botina, a widow, was the owner of the land in dispute in the year 1931. She gave the land on lease to Balcrisna Seguna Bhat Sane of Sancordem for a period of 99 years beginning with 8-9-1931. The main terms of the lease agreement were that the landlady shall be entitled to evict the tenant if he failed to pay the rent by 31st of May each year, or exhibited neglect in maintaining the boundary marks of the property in visible condition, or permitted the adjoining owners to usurp any part of the leased property. It was on 10-2-1959 that the petitioner Govind Gopal Shenvi and his two brothers purchased the leased property from the heirs of Baguiroti Botina. The new purchasers, it is admitted, were duly paid the rent for the years 1959-60 to 1961-62 but the tenant Balcrisna Sane, it is alleged by the petitioner failed to pay the rent in time for the year 1962-63. Consequently on 16-7-63 the new owners filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge at Quepem for eviction of Balcrisna Sane on the grounds of non-payment of rent, destruction of the boundary marks and the usurpation of a part of the leased property by neighbouring owners due to negligence or connivance of the tenant. The prayer for the recovery of the rent which had fallen in arrears by the date of the suit and also which would become due during the pendency of the suit was also made.
3. The suit was resisted by traversing all the allegations made in the plaint and on the footing of the plea that the plaintiffs of the suit were owners only of 3/8th part in the property while the remaining 1/8th part belonged to Balcrisna Sane. The plaintiffs had also prayed for immediate possession of the leased property, a right warranted by the provisions of the Portuguese Civil Procedure Code, hereinafter called the Portuguese Code. The Court held by its preliminary order dated 24-4-64 that the tenant having failed to pay or deposit the rent within the time prescribed by Section 993 of the Portuguese Code he was liable to immediate eviction. In execution of that order the tenant was actually evicted on 24-6-64. The suit was thereafter tried in normal manner and it was ultimately decreed on 19-3-65. The Court held that all the three grounds on which the eviction was sought had been established by evidence on the record and that the tenant had failed to prove his counter claim that he was a part owner of the leased property.
4. It may be mentioned at this stage that Balcrisna Sane did not file any appeal either challenging the validity of the preliminary order dated 24-4-64 or the final decree dated 19-3-65. However, he filed a writ petition in this Court on 19-2-65 praying the order dated 24-4-64 should be quashed. He succeeded in securing an ad interim stay of the order but the writ petition was ultimately withdrawn on 20th of April 1967. Another fact which requires mention at this stage is that it was on 8-2-65, almost a month and half before the suit was decreed on 19-3-65, that the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1964, hereinafter referred to as the Tenancy Act, was enforced in the territory of Goa.
5. Balcrisna Sane filed an application on 22-6-65 before the Mamlatdar at Sanguem under Section 18(1) read with Sections 3(3), 4, 8(1) and 58 of the Tenancy Act against Govind Gopal Shenvi complaining that he had been unjustly evicted out of the land and praying that the possession be restored to him. This application was resisted principally on the ground that since the preliminary order dated 24-4-64 and the final decree dated 19-3-65 had not been challenged in appeal they had become final and so the tenancy had terminated for good. It was also pleaded tha
