The relationship established by the agreement dated 4/6/1990 is that of landlord and tenant, subject to the provisions of the Rent Control Act.

By this appeal the appellants takes exception to the judgment and decree dated 8/3/2001 passed by the District Judge, South Goa, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 87/1999 dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree 3/8/1999 passed by the Civil Judge Junior Division, Margao in Regular Civil Suit no.193/92/C.

2. The appellants are the legal representatives of the original plaintiffs Fr.Caitano Piedade Santana Cardoz who filed the suit against the respondents seeking compensation of Rs.200/- per month from June 1990 to November, 1990 and Rs.250/- per month from December, 1990 onwards till handing over of the suit area and also demolishing and removal of the shed structure erected therein. The plaintiffs also sought cancellation of the agreement dated 4/6/1990 and eviction of the defendants. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to as per their status before the trial Court.

3. The defendant resisted the suit and he claimed that he was in possession and in occupation of the property mentioned in the agreement for the last about 15 years as tenant. The defendant also contended that he was a tenant under the Rent Control Act. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed:

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that by agreement dated 4.6.1990, he allowed the defendant to occupy the suit property?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant failed to honour the terms of th agreement by non-payment of the compensation?

3. Whether the defendant proves that he is the tenant of the suit premises?

4. In Regular Civil Suit no.193/92/C the plaintiff examined Caetanho Piedade Cardozo, PW.1 who produced the agreement dated 4/6/1990 and the notice issued to the defendant Antonio B. Cardoz,PW.2, Lucy Cardozo, PW.3 and Sebastiao Paes, PW.4. The defendant examined himself and Rosario D'Mello, Dw.2. The trial Court upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence led by the parties held that the defendant was the tenant of the suit premises from 1986 onwards and consequently the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to decided the suit. Being aggrieved by the judgment passed by the trial Court, the appellants herein preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 87/1999 to the District Court. The District Court framed the following points for determination:

a) Whether the plaintiffs have proved that the transaction between the original plaintiff and the defendant was only for an area of land and not for the shed/structure?

b) Whether the transaction is of leave and licence or of lease/tenancy of building?

c) What relief, what order?

5. The lower Appellate Court re-assessed the evidence and held that the agreement dated 4/6/1990 was not a mere Leave and License Agreement but held the relationship created by the said document was of lease i.e of landlord and tenant. The lower Appellate Court consequently dismissed the appeal.

6. Ms. Mordekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that both the Courts below have totally misconstrued the agreement dated 4/6/1990 and have come to th conclusion that the respondent is the tenant in respect of the structure existing in the property of the appellants. She further submitted that the evidence on record clearly suggests that initially the defendant was given permission to occupy a portion of the plaintiff's property on payment of compensation and merely because he was permitted to erect the structure the same did not amount to creation of lease between the parties. She further submitted that the findings given by both the Courts below th