Goa Daman and Diu Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964:
ss.3, 4 and 32 (As amended by Amendment Act 19 of 1989) – Property in question an evacuee property – Under supervision of Custodian under the Act – Appellants in possession thereof as tenants of custodian – Application by respondent No.2 under s.7 and 8-A of Goa Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 to declare him tenant of portion of the property in question – Claim of respondent allowed by the Authorities and Courts below – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: The claim of 2nd respondent has been allowed without recording any valid reasons based on acceptable evidence to prove the claimed tenancy – Respondent No.2 has failed to prove his tenancy as well as his deemed tenancy – Even to claim sub-tenancy through the tenants/appellants, there was no prior approval from the custodian as contemplated u/s.32 – Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 – ss.7 and 8A.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The claim of the 2nd respondent is allowed without recording any valid reasons based on acceptable evidence to prove the tenancy as claimed by him. The 2nd respondent has not claimed tenancy directly from the Custodian, in absence of which he cannot have the benefit of Amending Act 19 of 1989. Amending Act 19 of 1989 which amends the Goa, Daman and Diu Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964 and the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 makes it clear that ‘tenancy’ means the relationship existing between tenant and the Custodian. [Para 9][1013-C-D]
2. The 2nd respondent has not claimed tenancy on the basis of relationship existing with the Custodian. Further, by virtue of Section 3, as amended, the provisions of Tenancy Act are made applicable only to agricultural land and tenancies created by the Custodian. The said provision is a provision overriding other laws. Even as per the claim of the 2nd respondent he was not in possession at the time of making the application but it was his case that he was dispossessed after the appellants’ predecessors obtained injunction orders in Civil Suit No.126 of 1984. As such, he has claimed to be a deemed tenant within the meaning of Section 4 of the Tenancy Act. To establish deemed tenancy under Section 4 of the Tenancy Act, one has to prove that person claiming deemed tenancy was in possession on or after the 1st of July 1962 and before the commencement of the Act, i.e., 08.02.1965. The 2nd respondent has not filed any acceptable documentary evidence to prove that he was in possession during the relevant time to claim tenancy. Even to claim sub-tenancy or transfer from the predecessor of the appellants, who was admittedly tenant from the Custodian under the provisions of the Evacuee Property Act, there was no prior approval from the Custodian as contemplated under Section 32 of the Evacuee Property Act. The primary authority, though referred to various objections raised by the appellants herein, has allowed the application based on the alleged oral settlement by the appellants’ predecessor and the 2nd respondent. Such oral settlement which is disputed by the appellants cannot be the basis for grant of tenancy rights on the application made by the 2nd respondent. [Para 9][1013-D-H; 1014-A-B]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.