GABRIEL DE SA Vs. BABUSO PEDNEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short question that arises in this writ petition is as to whether the order passed by the appellate and revisional authorities declaring that the respondent No. 1 is a mundkar in respect of the disputed house and that he is entitled to the benefit under the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (hereinafter called the Act ). As is discernible from the preamble of the Act the sole purpose of bringing such an enactment is to protect the mundkar against eviction from the dwelling house and from granting him the right to purchase the same and also to abolish the system of free services rendered by mundkars. The provisions of an enactment whenever certain difficulties arise for understanding and interpreting the same, emphasis should be to its objects that are to be achieved. In this case provisions should be interpreted in favour of the mundkars.

(2.) NOW coming to the facts emerge in this case. It has been established before the authorities below that the petitioner has been residing in the disputed house even before 12th March, 1975, the relevant date to be reckoned for the purpose of maintaining an application under the Act by the mundkars. Though the original authority has dismissed the application on the ground that the house in question has not been constructed by the mundkar, both the appellate authority and revisional authority, on facts, found that the finding of the original authority was baseless and therefore set aside that order. As facts proved in this case, the house in dispute satisfied the definition of dwelling house as the construction of the house irrespective of the facts that the house might be constructed either by the mundkar or by the owner. According to the appellate authority and the revisional authority with the definition of mundkar petition satisfies the definition of mundkar.

(3.) I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, bhatkar. He strongly argues that the respondent is not entitled to the benefit of mundkar for the reason that he is a caretaker in respect of both the property and of the house. Therefore he will come under the exclusion clause (iv) of section 2 (p) of the Act. I do not think that the contention of the learned Counsel is sustainable.