Tenancy Act, 1964 for declaration as the agricultural tenant in respect of the said landed property belonging to the respondent No.1 Communidade and for consequential relief of deletion of the name of the respondent No.3 Gopi as such tenant from survey records, and the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such matters was completely barred by Section 58 of the said Act. On this background, he submitted, the learned Mamlatdar ought to have made enquiry; and decided such question of tenancy instead of throwing out such application on the specious preliminary objection. He further submitted that the authorities below had indulged in gross misconstruction of the judicial precedents, particularly Inacio Dias's case, which had interpreted the provisions of Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964, particularly Sections 7, 8A, 9, 10, 11 and 12 in order to negative the contention that in a dispute about tenancy of lands between earlier and subsequent tenant, the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to grant injunction/ relief. He further argued that the Mamlatdar in view of the provisions of Section 7 was/ is competent authority to decide the questions regarding tenancy and as such the decision to reject his application on preliminary objection was perverse and illegal.
