MONICA FERNANDES Vs. SURESH SHIRODKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SOME where in the year 1980 respondent No. 1 filed a civil suit against the petitioner for eviction in respect of a dwelling house situated in the property "chirputcm" consisting of house and coconut trees situated at Alto Mapusa bearing Chalta No. 11 and 46 of P. T. Sheet 154 of City Survey of Mapusa. The property was originally belonging to one Joaquim Caetan DSa and by sale deed dated 3-4-1978 was purchased by the said respondent No. 1. It was an admitted position that prior to the sale deed the petitioner was occupying the house situated in the property but immediately after the purchase the said respondent No. 1 sent to her lawyers notice dated 2-1-1978 calling upon the petitioner to vacate the house.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that it was not alleged by the respondent No. 1 in the said notice that the petitioner had forced herself in the suit house or that she was a trespasser. The said notice was however ignored by the petitioner and thereafter for period of two years no action was taken by the respondent No. 1 against her. It was only on 26-8-1980 that the civil suit bearing No. 189 of 1980 was filed by the respondent No. 1 at the Mapusa Court. In this suit it was alleged by the respondent that the petitioner had forced herself in the house in the year 1977 and that a notice dated 2-3-1978 was sent to her and that she was a trespasser.

(3.) IN her written statement the petitioner took the defence that she was a mundkar and therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit under the Mundkars Act. An issue was framed accordingly and referred to the Mamlatdar. The Mamlatdar decided the issue against the petitioner by judgment dated 30-6-1985 on the ground that she had claimed to be staying in the suit house from November, 1974 which claim was not established irrespective of the fact that admittedly the petitioner was acknowledged to be living in the suit house since March, 1977. The petitioner then appellate to the Collector who by judgment dated 14-2-1986 upset the Order of the Mamlatdar and declared the petitioner as mundkar. The respondent No. 1 then moved in revision the Administrative Tribunal which by its judgment dated 11-5-1989 allowed the same and affirmed the original Order of the Mamlatdar by holding that Explanation to section 2 (p) was not attracted in her case once the petitioner was staying the suit house since March, 1977.