Philip Caetano D''souza, (since deceased) Through his legal heirs: Eleno D''souza and Others vs A. E. Menezes, Landlord, near Carmel college, Nuvem, Salcete, Goa and Antonio Souza

A.P. Lavande, J.—By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order dated 21.02.2007 passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Panaji in Tenancy Revision Application No. 95/2001 dismissing the Revision Application filed by the petitioner against the judgment and order dated 10.05.2001 passed by the Deputy Collector and Sub Divisional Officer, Margao,in DYC/TNC/APPL/03/99. The respondents filed suit for eviction of Philip Caetano D''souza in respect of the property bearing survey Nos. 132/3 and 16/7 situated at Macazana. The defendant claimed to be the tenants inrespect of both the survey numbers. Since the issue of tenancy was raised the issued was referred to the Mamlatdar under the Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act (The Act for short). The Joint Mamlatdar, Salcete by judgment and order dated09.10.1998 held that the defendant was the tenant inrespect of both the survey numbers. The respondents preferred appeal, before Additional Collector who by judgment and order dated 10.05.2001 held that the defendant was the tenant only in respect of surveyNo. 132/3 which is admittedly a paddy field and a portion of survey No. 16/7 which is admittedly a paddy field and not in respect of other portion which is hilly portion consisting of several trees. The Deputy Collector upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties held that the defendants had been able to prove his tenancy in respect of survey No. 132/3 and a portion of 16/7 which is a paddy field. The Deputy Collector held that the petitioner had not proved that he was atenant of the remaining portion of survey No. 16/7which is a hilly portion consisting of different types of trees. The Deputy Collector held that the defendant had not proved that he had cultivated the remaining portion of survey No. 16/7 which is not apaddy field. Against the said order, the defendant preferred Revision application to the Administrative Tribunal which has been dismissed by the impugned order. During the pendency of the revision application the original defendant in the suit expired and his legal representatives were brought on record.

Mr. Bhobe, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Deputy Colelctor as well as the Administrative Tribunal have erred in upsetting the findings given by the Mamlatdar that Philip D''souza was the tenant in respect of both the survey numbers i.e. 132/3 and 16/7. According to Mr. Hobe, the evidence produced by the original defendant, both oral and documentary clearly establishes his tenancy in respect of the entire survey No. 16/7. He therefore, submitted that the Deputy Collector as well as the Administrative Tribunal have not exercised the jurisdiction in accordance with law and therefore, interference iscalled for by this Court. Having considered the submissions made by learned Advocate Mr. Bhobe and having perused the records, I find no merit in the present petition. Except for the statement of Philip D''souza that he is the tenant of the entire land bearing survey No. 16/7,there is absolutely no evidence, to establish his tenancy in respect of the portion of land, which is not paddy field. In so far as the documents i.e. receipts produced by him are concerned, the same do not refer to any survey number and as such do not advance the case of the petitioners. The Deputy Collector, in my opinion has correctly exercised, the appellate jurisdiction under the Act. Similarly, the Administrative Tribunal has also exercised revisional jurisdiction in accordance with the well settled principles. There is no illegality or perversity in the orders passed by the Deputy Collector as well as the Administrative Tribunal. The petitioner has not been able to establish any jurisdictional error on the part of the Deputy Collector or the Administrative Tribunal while passing the orders. It is well settled that jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is very limited. Having regard to the principle of interference, I find that the petitioner has not made out any case for interference. Hence the petition is dismised.