SITABAI SHANTARAM TALAWNEKAR & ORS. versus CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY & ORS.

Citation: [2020] 3 S.C.R. 1007 · Decided: 25-02-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1007
SITABAI SHANTARAM TALAWNEKAR & ORS.
v.
CUSTODIAN OF EVACUEE PROPERTY & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8802-8803 of 2013)
FEBRUARY 25, 2020
[L. NAGESWARA RAO AND R. SUBHASH REDDY, JJ.]
Goa Daman and Diu Administration of Evacuee Property Act,
1964:
ss.3, 4 and 32 (As amended by Amendment Act 19 of 1989) –
Property in question an evacuee property – Under supervision of
Custodian under the Act – Appellants in possession thereof as tenants
of custodian – Application by respondent No.2 under s.7 and 8-A
of Goa Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 to declare
him tenant of portion of the property in question – Claim of
respondent allowed by the Authorities and Courts below – Appeal
to Supreme Court – Held: The claim of 2nd respondent has been
allowed without recording any valid reasons based on acceptable
evidence to prove the claimed tenancy – Respondent No.2 has failed
to prove his tenancy as well as his deemed tenancy – Even to claim
sub-tenancy through the tenants/appellants, there was no prior
approval from the custodian as contemplated u/s.32 – Goa, Daman
and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 – ss.7 and 8A.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The claim of the 2nd  respondent is allowed
without recording any valid reasons based on acceptable evidence
to prove the tenancy as claimed by him. The 2nd respondent has
not claimed tenancy directly from the Custodian, in absence of
which he cannot have the benefit of Amending Act 19 of 1989.
Amending Act 19 of 1989 which amends the Goa, Daman and Diu
Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964 and the Goa,
Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 makes it clear
that ‘tenancy’ means the relationship existing between tenant
and the Custodian. [Para 9][1013-C-D]
2. The 2nd respondent has not claimed tenancy on the basis
of relationship existing with the Custodian. Further, by virtue of
[2020] 3 S.C.R. 1007
1007
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1008
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 3 S.C.R.
Section 3, as amended, the provisions of Tenancy Act are made
applicable only to agricultural land and tenancies created by the
Custodian. The said provision is a provision overriding other
laws. Even as per the claim of the 2nd respondent he was not in
possession at the time of making the application but it was his
case that he was dispossessed after the appellants’ predecessors
obtained injunction orders in Civil Suit No.126 of 1984. As such,
he has claimed to be a deemed tenant within the meaning of
Section 4 of the Tenancy Act. To establish deemed tenancy under
Section 4 of the Tenancy Act, one has to prove that person
claiming deemed tenancy was in possession on or after the 1st of
July 1962 and before the commencement of the Act, i.e.,
08.02.1965. The 2nd respondent has not filed any acceptable
documentary evidence to prove that he was in possession during
the relevant time to claim tenancy. Even to claim sub-tenancy or
transfer from the predecessor of the appellants, who was
admittedly tenant from the Custodian under the provisions of
the Evacuee Property Act, there was no prior approval from the
Custodian as contemplated under Section 32 of the Evacuee
Property Act. The primary authority, though referred to various
objections raised by the appellants herein, has allowed the
application based on the alleged oral settlement by the appellants’
predecessor and the 2nd respondent. Such oral settlement which
is disputed by the appellants cannot be the basis for grant of
tenancy rights on the application made by the 2nd respondent.
[Para 9][1013-D-H; 1014-A-B]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8802-
8803 of 2013.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.05.2009 of the High Court
of  Bombay at Goa in Writ Petition No. 142 of 2009 and order dated
09.09.2009 in L.P.A. No. 14 of 2009.
With
Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 187-188 of 2012 in C.A. Nos. 8802-
8803 of 2013.
Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Adv., Sidharth Mohan, Aditya Sidhra,
Ankit Yadav, T. Mahipal, Advs. for the Appellants.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1009
Pratap Venugopal, Ms. Surekha Raman, Ms. Ayushi Gaur, Akhil
Abraham Roy, Vijay Valsan, M/S. K J John And Co., Abhinav Mukerji,
Samarth Khanna, Mrs. Bihu Sharma, Ms. Pratishtha Vij, Advs. for the
Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.
Civil Appeal Nos.8802-8803 of 2013
1. These civil appeals are filed, aggrieved by the judgment and
order dated 08.05.2009 passed in W.P. No.142 of 2009 and the judgment
and order dated 09.09.2009 passed in L.P.A. No.1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.