(1.) Heard. Rule. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith.
(2.) The petitioners challenge the Order dated 21st December, 2005 passed by the Mamlatdar in Case No. JMIII/mund/decl/01 and 02/2005 under Section 8a of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkar (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975. By the impugned Judgment the learned Mamlatdar has dismissed the application solely on the ground that the respondent before the Mamlatdar had purchased the house in his capacity as mundkar having been registered under Section 29 of the said Act and not by a stranger to the property. The learned Mamlatdar has held that if a person who is alien to the property purchases the property as a whole including the mundcarial house then only such a person steps into the shoes of the mundkar. If a person is registered as mundkar under Section 29 of the said Act, he does not step into the shoes of the batkar.
(3.) Few facts relevant for the decision are that the petitioners herein approached the Mamlatdar with the plea that the house which was purchased by the respondents was constructed by their common ancestor and the respondents along with the petitioners are occupying the said house in mundcarial capacity. However respondent No. 1 was registered as witness under Section 29 of the said Act and taking advantage of the said situation the respondents purchased the area identified as the dwelling house from the owners of the property. Consequently it was the contention of the petitioners that the respondent no. 1 has stepped into the shoes of the original batkar visavis the petitioners and the petitioners are entitled to purchase their share in the house under the provisions of the Mundkar Act. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition on the ground that the respondent No. 1 are purchasers of the mundcarial area, and that the respondent No. 1 does not assume the character of batkar. The learned Mamlatdar accepting this objection, rejected the application filed by the petitioners under Section 8a.