Supreme Court Overturns Tenancy Claim on Evacuee Property: Sitabai Shantaram Talawnekar vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property (25 February 2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 25 February 2020
Citation: (2020) INSC 172
Judges: L. Nageswara Rao, J., R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can someone claim tenancy rights over an evacuee property without a direct agreement with the Custodian of Evacuee Property? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, focusing on the interpretation of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, and the Goa, Daman and Diu Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964. The core issue was whether a person could be declared a tenant of evacuee property based on an alleged oral agreement with a previous tenant, rather than a direct relationship with the Custodian. This judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice L. Nageswara Rao and Justice R. Subhash Reddy, with the opinion authored by Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The dispute revolves around a property known as ‘Conde-Mayem’ located in Mayem, Bicholim, Goa. This property, originally owned by Eurico de Soza Joquem Noroana, was declared evacuee property after the liberation of Goa and came under the supervision of the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The appellants claimed to be tenants of the Custodian. A dispute arose between the predecessors of the appellants and the 2nd respondent (now represented by his legal heirs).

The appellants’ predecessors had filed Civil Suit No. 126 of 1984 seeking a permanent injunction against the 2nd respondent to prevent interference with the property. An ex-parte injunction was granted on 15.07.1985. The 2nd respondent’s appeal against this injunction was dismissed. On 05.11.1984, the 2nd respondent applied to the Custodian of Evacuee Property, claiming possession of a portion of the cashew garden and alleging that the appellants were trying to evict him for not paying exorbitant rent. This application was dismissed on 21.01.1986.

Despite the injunction orders, the appellants obtained police protection on 29.08.1989 due to alleged interference by the respondents. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent filed Regular Civil Suit No. 60 of 1990, which was dismissed on 18.12.1992.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The case hinges on the interpretation of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, and the Goa, Daman and Diu Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964.

Section 2(23) of the Tenancy Act defines a ‘tenant’ as a person who holds land on lease and cultivates it personally, including a deemed tenant. Section 4 of the Tenancy Act defines ‘deemed tenant’ as someone lawfully cultivating land belonging to another person between 1st July 1962 and 8th February 1965. Initially, Section 56 of the Tenancy Act exempted evacuee properties from its purview.

However, the Amending Act 19 of 1989 extended the Tenancy Act to evacuee properties. Section 2(kkk) of the Amending Act defines ‘tenancy’ as the relationship between the tenant and the Custodian. Section 2(kkkk) defines ‘tenant’ as someone who holds land and cultivates it personally after the commencement of the 1989 Amendment Act, excluding those who lease land only for plucking fruits. Section 3 of the Amending Act amended the principal Act to override other laws, stating that the Tenancy Act applies to agricultural land and tenancies created by the Custodian.

Section 32 of the Evacuee Property Act states that any transfer or transaction related to evacuee property is invalid without the Custodian’s prior approval.

Relevant legal provisions include:

• Section 2(23) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964: Definition of ‘tenant’.
• Section 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964: Definition of ‘deemed tenant’.
• Section 56 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964: Exemption of certain lands including evacuee properties.
• Section 2(kkk) of the Goa Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1989: Definition of ‘tenancy’.
• Section 2(kkkk) of the Goa Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1989: Definition of ‘tenant’.
• Section 3 of the Goa Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964 (as amended): Act to override other laws.
• Section 32 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964: Transactions relating to evacuee property void in certain circumstances.

Section 3 of the Goa Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964, as amended by the Amending Act 19 of 1989, states:

“3. Act to override other laws. —
(1)On and from the date of coming into force of the Goa
Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1989,
the provisions of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural
Tenancy Act, 1964 (Act 7 of 1964), for the time being in
force, shall apply in respect of agricultural land and tenancies
created by the Custodian.
(2)The provisions of this section shall, save as otherwise
expressly provided, have effect notwithstanding anything to
the contrary contained in any instrument having effect by
virtue of any such law.”

Section 32 of the Evacuee Property Act states:

“32. Transactions relating to evacuee property void in
certain circumstances. -(1) As from the commencement of
this Act, no transfer of or transaction in respect of any
property belonging to a Portuguese national shall be valid
unless it is made with the previous approval of the Custodian.
(2) Subject to the other provisions contained in this Act, every
transaction entered into by any person in respect of property
declared or deemed to be declared to be evacuee property
within the meaning of this Act shall be void unless entered
into by or with the previous approval of the Custodian”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The appellants argued that the 2nd respondent’s tenancy claim was allowed without valid reasons or evidence.
• They contended that the primary authority based its decision on an alleged oral compromise, without properly examining the requirements for declaring a tenant under the Tenancy Act.
• They asserted that there was no evidence to prove that the 2nd respondent was a ‘tenant’ or ‘deemed tenant’ under the Tenancy Act.
• The appellants highlighted that the land was an evacuee property, and the Tenancy Act only became applicable through the 1989 amendment, specifically for tenancies created by the Custodian.
• They argued that the 2nd respondent did not have a direct relationship with the Custodian, which is a pre-requisite for claiming tenancy rights under the amended law.

Respondents’ Arguments:

• The respondents argued that there was a concurrent finding by all authorities, which was confirmed by the High Court, and therefore, no interference was warranted.
• They claimed that the 2nd respondent was related to the appellants and was in possession of a portion of the land, which was covered by the tenancy claim.
• They submitted that oral and documentary evidence confirmed the 2nd respondent’s possession.
• They contended that the primary authority had correctly declared the 2nd respondent as a tenant based on available evidence.

The innovativeness of the argument was on the part of the appellants, who highlighted the specific requirements of the amended law, particularly the need for a direct relationship with the Custodian for a valid tenancy claim on evacuee property.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. Whether the claim of the 2nd respondent for declaration of tenancy is valid under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, as amended?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 2(23) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964: Defines ‘tenant’.
• Section 4 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964: Defines ‘deemed tenant’.
• Section 56 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964: Exempts certain lands including evacuee properties from the Act.
• Section 2(kkk) of the Goa Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1989: Defines ‘tenancy’.
• Section 2(kkkk) of the Goa Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1989: Defines ‘tenant’.
• Section 3 of the Goa Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964 (as amended): Overrides other laws.
• Section 32 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964: Transactions relating to evacuee property void without Custodian’s approval.

The Court also considered the following:

• Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964: The Act regulates tenancy terms for agricultural lands in the Union Territory.
• Goa, Daman and Diu Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964: Governs the administration of evacuee properties.
• Goa Administration of Evacuee Property (Amendment) Act, 1989: Amended the principal Act to include evacuee properties under the Tenancy Act.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court emphasized that the amended Section 3 of the Goa Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964, makes the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, applicable only to tenancies created by the Custodian.
• The Court noted that Section 32 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1964, requires prior approval of the Custodian for any transaction in respect of evacuee property.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of the amended laws and the lack of evidence supporting the 2nd respondent’s tenancy claim. The Court emphasized that the Tenancy Act applies to evacuee properties only when a direct tenancy is created by the Custodian. The Court also highlighted the importance of documentary evidence to prove possession for establishing a deemed tenancy. The alleged oral settlement was not considered sufficient to grant tenancy rights.

The Court’s reasoning was as follows:

The Court rejected the argument that the 2nd respondent was a deemed tenant as there was no evidence of possession during the relevant period. The Court also rejected the claim of sub-tenancy or transfer from the appellants’ predecessor due to lack of prior approval from the Custodian, as required under Section 32 of the Evacuee Property Act.

The Court stated, “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.”

The Court further observed, “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.”

The Court also noted, “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.”

Key Takeaways

• Tenancy rights on evacuee properties require a direct relationship between the tenant and the Custodian of Evacuee Property, as per the amended laws.
• Oral agreements or settlements are not sufficient to establish tenancy rights on evacuee properties.
• Claimants must provide documentary evidence to prove possession during the relevant period to establish a deemed tenancy.
• Any transfer or transaction related to evacuee property requires prior approval from the Custodian.
• This judgment clarifies the applicability of tenancy laws to evacuee properties and sets a precedent for similar cases.

Directions

The Supreme Court:

• Allowed the appeals filed by the appellants.
• Set aside the impugned orders of the lower authorities and the High Court.
• Dismissed the application filed by the 2nd respondent before the Joint Mamlatdar-I of Bicholim.
• Closed the contempt petitions, as the main appeals were decided.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that for tenancy claims on evacuee properties to be valid, there must be a direct relationship between the tenant and the Custodian of Evacuee Property. This judgment clarifies that the amended Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, applies to evacuee properties only when the tenancy is created by the Custodian. It also establishes that oral settlements or claims of possession without proper evidence are not sufficient to establish tenancy rights. This changes the previous position by emphasizing the need for a direct relationship with the Custodian, which was not strictly enforced earlier.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Sitabai Shantaram Talawnekar vs. Custodian of Evacuee Property clarifies the requirements for establishing tenancy rights on evacuee properties. The Court held that a direct relationship with the Custodian is necessary for a valid tenancy claim and that oral settlements or claims of possession without proper evidence are insufficient. This decision reinforces the importance of adhering to legal provisions and providing substantial evidence when claiming tenancy rights, especially in the context of evacuee properties.