SHAIKH ABDUL REHMAN Vs. MANUEL BARRETO XAVIER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in this Writ Petition claiming to be mundkars filed application before the Mamlatdar of Salcete Taluka for a declaration of their mundkarial right over the dwelling house in the property at Pajifond, Margao. THEy also stated in the application the circumstances under which they were compelled to make the application. THE respondent no. 1 had filed a suit for eviction being Regular Civil Suit No.212/75 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao, wherein the respondent no. 1 sought the eviction of the petitioners from the suit house. THE Mamlatdar has rejected the application on the ground that the petitioners are not mundkars. On the other hand, the Mamlatdar has found that they are the tenants of the house under the respondent no. 1 paying a rent of Rs. 10/-per month, by relying on an agreement entered into between the first petitioner and the respondent no. 1's father. Against the order of the Mamlatdar the petitioners filed an appeal before the Additional Collector being case No. MUND/ac/apl/79/83. In that appeal the order of the Mamlatdar was confirmed. THE petitioners then filed a revision application before the Administrative Tribunal being Mundkar Revision Application No.13/84. By judgment dated 12th March,1991, the revision filed by the petitioner was also dismissed. Before the Administrative Tribunal the finding of the court below pointing out that the petitioners were tenants of the house were reagitated. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners before the Tribunal that the so-called agreement dated 4th January,1971, was vitiated by undue influence and misrepresentation. THE learned Administrative Tribunal has elaborately discussed the pleadings and evidence and the petitioners' case that the said contract is vitiated by undue influence and misrepresentation has been rejected. THErefore, on the basis of the finding of the courts below it has been established that the petitioners have no right over the land. THEy are only rented tenants in respect of the house in question.

(2.) THE counsel for the petitioners made a futile attempt before me to argue that in view of the averments in the suit aforesaid there is an implied admission on the part of the respondents that the petitioners are tenants in respect of the land. I am not supposed to reappreciate the evidence or the facts of the case in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. As I pointed out earlier, all the courts below have concurrently found on facts and law that the petitioners are not mundkars. This Court cannot interfere in that finding by execising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, unless the said finding is illegal and perverse. I find no illegality in the orders passed by the authorities below.