MANUEL BARRETO XAVIER Vs. NARAYAN BIKU NAIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -THESE two Writ Petitions arise out of a common order passed by the Administrative Tribunal in mundkar Revision Application Nos. 2/8. 1 and 9/81 dated 19th June; 1991, whereby the administrative Tribunal; contrary to the findings of the Additional Collector and Joint mamlatdar of Salcete, found that the respondents in the writ petitions are Mundkars. The order of the Administrative Tribunal dated 19th June, 1991, is under challenge in these writ Petitions.

(2.) THE short facts of the case arenas follows: the petitioner herein filed a suit being regular Civil Suit No. 210/75, against the respondents for eviction from the house situated in the suit property. In the suit the respondents have taken a contention that they are the Mundkars in respect of the house in the suit property from where they are sought to be evicted and that they are not liable to be evicted in view of the protection under the provisions, of the Goa, Daman and diu Mundkars (Protection From Eviction) Act, 1975. The question therefore was referred by the Civil Court to the Joint Mamlatdar in consistence with the provisions of the Mundkars act. Two references were made at the instance of the two respondents. The Joint mamlatdar by his order dated 2nd June, 1980. held that the respondents are not Mundkars of the suit-house. Against the said order of the respondents filed an appeal before the Additional Collector. The Additional Collector by order dated 1st December, 1980 confirmed the findings of the Joint Mamlatdar that the respondents are not Mundkars. Against these decisions the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed two revisions before the Administrative Tribunal as Mundkar Revision Applications No. 2/ 81 and 9/81, referred to hereinbefore.

(3.) BEFORE the authorities below, the petitioner's contention was that he has only permitted the respondents to occupy the house as tenants on payment of rent and they were not permitted to construct the house in the land as alleged by them. Documentary evidence and oral evidence were adduced. In order to support his contention the petitioner has produced an agreement entered into between the respondents and the petitioner. Relying on this documentary evidence and also oral evidence both the Joint Mamlatdar arid the Appellate Authority have found that the respondents are not Mundkars. When the revision was heard before the Administrative tribunal a document which had been produced by the respondents was pressed into service. The said document was a certified copy of a declaration said to have been made by the petitioner before the Chief Officer of the Municipality. Both the Mamlatdar and the appellate Authority have not considered the document as it has not been proved, but the administrative Tribunal took a different stand and found that the said document has been proved and on that basis discarding all other evidence on record, relying solely upon this document, the orders of the Joint Mamlatdar and Additional Collector have been set aside by the Administrative Tribunal. According to me. a wrong approach has been made by the administrative Tribunal. If the Administrative tribunal feels that this document is worth to be examined, the best course open to the administrative Tribunal would be to remand the matter to the original authority to go into the question. The Administrative Tribunal, instead of doing it, took upon itself as a revisionakauthority the task of appreciating the said evidence and decided the matter against the petitioner. The Administrative tribunal proceeded on the basis that a certified copy of the so-called declaration said to have been made by the petitioner certified by the Chief Officer of the Margao Municipal council is a public document and mere production of the said document will be sufficient proof of the contents of that document. According to me the Administrative Tribunal has committed a serious error on this score. Admittedly, it is a declaration given by a private citizen to a public authority and merely because that declaration comes by way of a certified copy it will not make the document. a public dqcument which normally does not require fornial proof. A cursory reading of section 74 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972, will go to show that 'such a document is not a public document. Section 74 reads as follows: