Julia Carlos Rodrigues and Others vs Narayan Naique Yesso Naik and Another

Britto N.A., J.—This Second Appeal is at the instance of the plaintiff in R.C.S. No. 239 of 1973.

Heard Shri R.G. Ramani, learned Counsel on behalf of the appellants/plaintiffs. The defendants/respondents have chosen not to remain present.

At a time when the Goa Rent Control Act was not enforced in village Chinchinim, the plaintiffs filed the suit with the allegation that the defendants were in arrears of rent for nine months in respect of a room which was let out to them i.e. by the plaintiffs husband on 21-2-1973 for a period of eight months. The defendant resisted the claim contending that the defendants were the mundkars in respect of the suit house. The plea taken by the defendants was negatived first by the Mamlatdar and finally by the Administrative Tribunal. Once the said plea was negatived the defendants could not have had any right to hold on unto the house or the land. The claim of the plaintiffs was therefore decreed by the trial Court only to be upheld by the. first Appellate Court, on a specious plea that the suit room was not identified.

The plaint clearly shows that what was let out to the defendants was a room attached to the house on the east in which the plaintiffs were storing coconuts and dry fuel for fire in winter season. The learned first Appellate Court inspite of observing twice in the judgment that there was no dispute as regards the identify of the suit room came to the conclusion that there was no clear identity of the suit premises. In para 7, the learned first Appellate Court observed that the pleadings on ownership, the description of the room and its location were not in dispute at the instance of the defendants. Likewise, in para 19, the learned first Appellate Court again observed that there was no dispute on the identify of the suit room as pleaded by the plaintiffs. If that be so, one fails to understand as to how the learned first Appellate Court concluded that the suit had to fail because there was no clear identity of the suit premises. The conclusion appears to be based on warped logic. It is perverse and needs to be set aside.

There was no other defence taken by the defendants except mundkarship. The defendants having failed to prove the plea taken by them that they were the mundkars in relation to the suit room/premises there was no other option except to order their eviction which the learned trial Court had rightly done. There was never a dispute about the identity of the room let to the defendants by the husband of the plaintiff. The substantial question of law framed on 19-4-2007 is answered in favour of the plaintiffs. Consequently, this Second Appeal deserves to succeed. The judgment of the learned first Appellate Court dated 25-8-2006 deserves to be set aside and the judgment of the learned trial Court dated 19-11-2005 restored, with costs in favour of the appellants/plaintiffs, throughout.