PANAJI
In the cases, the tenants could neither provide the lease agreements under Section 105 of the Land Revenue Code to substantiate their claim of tenancy, nor provide any details relating to lease like who created the lease, when was it created and its terms. Furthermore, in three cases, the applicants could not even prove the rent receipts and even failed to identify the signatures on the receipts. In the first case of a property known as Bodko Assan spread over two survey numbers in Dhargal, Pernem, the matter was referred to the mamlatdar on the directions of the civil court to examine the claims of tenancy for adjudication in the parent case. Several persons claimed to have cultivated paddy during rainy season in their respective plots till 1994. They claimed they were in possession and enjoyment of their respective plots for more than 85 years. Hence, they prayed to declare them as tenants of their respective strips/plots of the suit property. They also claimed that they have paid separate rents to different persons. What went against the tenants was that only one of them had examined himself in the witness box and only on his behalf and not on behalf of the whole group. “Other applicants have not stepped into the witness box. He has not deposed for and on behalf of the other applicants. He has deposed in his individual capacity,” the court said. What also went against them was that they failed to bring the surveyor into the witness box to examine the veracity of the plans drawn up by him. “They have failed to state as to when the lease was created. They have failed to provide details of lease and who had created the same. The terms and conditions of the lease are not pleaded. There is absolutely no substance in the claim of tenancy as no details are mentioned therein. The rent receipts are also not proved,” the court ruled while dismissing the case. In another case of a property known as Tale Vaingan in Querim, Pernem, the Court held that the entry with regard to tenants and cultivators was of no assistance to the applicants as they failed to provide the lease agreement and could not prove that their rent receipts were valid. The second case is particularly interesting, because the applicants are in continuous possession, enjoyment and cultivation of the suit property without interference from any person, and had their father s name in the tenants column of Form I and XIV. Besides this they have ten coconut trees in the suit property planted by their father and were cleaning and watering the property. They even became deemed purchasers of the property. However, despite examining themselves in the witness box, the judge ruled that “there is nothing on record to show that the suit property was given on lease by any landlord.” It didn t help their case that the landlord chose to ignore the case despite being served, and the case proceeded ex-parte. Further, the alleged rent receipts they produced as evidence cannot be considered to be the proof of tenancy as the applicants have not identified the person who has issued the alleged rent receipts, the judge ruled. The third case is also interesting as it was filed by the landlords against tenancy claimants saying that their names were wrongly entered as tenants in the property documents. The judge ruled in the affirmative after the tenants themselves admitted that their mother s name was wrongly included as a tenant and that she never cultivated the property and that they have no claims over the property. The fourth case is that of a claim to tenancy on land owned by a temple and represented by its president, part of which as been acquired by the government. However, the case failed as the claimant could not prove the veracity of the rent receipts, the existence of a lease or details like who created the lease, when was it created, what were the terms and conditions of the lease or could not even produce an accurate plan or sketch of the plot.
