JUDGMENT - R.K. BATTA, J.:---The respondent No. 1 had filed an application for registration as mundkar under section 29(4) of the Goa, Daman and Diu Mundkars (Protection from Eviction) Act, 1975 (hereinafter called 'the said Act'). The application of the respondent No. 1 was allowed and appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed. In revision filed before the Administrative Tribunal, the said findings of the courts below were reversed. The respondent No. 1 challenged the said Order of the Administrative Tribunal in Writ Petition No. 93 of 1991. The learned Single Judge upheld the orders passed by the Mamlatdar and the Additional Collector and found that the order of the Administrative Tribunal could not be sustained. Accordingly, the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal was set aside and the orders of Mamlatdar and Additional Collector allowing the application of the respondent for registration as mundkar were upheld. The order of the learned Single Judge is challenged before us in this appeal. 2. Though there are some Constitutional challenges to the provisions of the said Act, which have been raised by the appellants for the first time in this Letters Patent Appeal, which were not urged before the learned Single Judge, we are not inclined to permit the appellants to urge the said Constitutional challenges in this appeal. However, we make it clear that the appellants may seek their remedy in respect of the said challenges in case the said remedy is available to them. Therefore, in this appeal we shall restrict to the challenge of the appellants to the effect that on the basis of agreement dated 17th November, 1969, the respondent No. 1 cannot claim to be mundkar within the scope and ambit of the said Act. 3. Learned Advocate Shri S.S. Kantak submitted before us that the agreement in question was entered into when Diploma No. 1952 was in force and under the said Diploma, mundkar was required to render services like watch and ward duties for the purpose of agriculture and the said concept of mundkar as propounded in the said Diploma was retained in the temporary legislation, namely. The Goa, Daman and Diu (Protection of Mundkars, Agricultural Labourers and Village Artisans) Act, 1971, which was finally replaced by the present Act. In the present Act, the rendering of services does not form part of the definition of mundkar. The Goa, Daman and Diu (Protection of Mundkars, Agricultural Labourers and Village Artisans) Act, 1971, which was finally replaced by the present Act. In the present Act, the rendering of services does not form part of the definition of mundkar. In this background, it is urged by the learned Advocate Shri Kantak that since the agreement in question came to an end only in the year 1984, the respondent could not claim to be lawfully residing in the dwelling house within the definition of section 2(p) and, obviously, no eviction proceedings could have been instituted against the respondent within one year of the appointed date, since the respondent could not be termed to be a trespasser in occupation of the said dwelling house. His further contention is that the respondent cannot be said to be lawfully residing within the meaning of section 2(p) since the rights of the respondent were governed by a contract, namely, the agreement which was entered into between the parties, which was to expire only in the year 1984. Accordingly, his contention is that the respondent could not have been registered as mundkar in the circumstances of this case and the order of registration is totally invalid. Shri Kantak relied upon a ruling of the Apex Court in (M.C. Chockalingam and others v. V. Manickavasagam and others)1, A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 104 in order to demonstrate that the respondent could not be said to be lawfully residing for the purpose of the Mundkar Act. 4. We have given due consideration to the contentions placed before us by learned Advocate Shri Kantak. There was an agreement between the parties, which was entered into on 17th November, 1969 and in terms of the said agreement, the respondent was permitted to construct a barrack of mud with the cover of Mangalore tiles, consisting of two compartments, in a small tract of land covering an area of 50 sq. metres and of the length of 30 feet and breadth of 15 feet on is own expenses of approximately Rs. 6,000/- and in terms of the said agreement, he was to possess the said dwelling house as his own during the period of 15 years and, at the end of 15 years, the said barrack would belong to the appellants. The appointed date for Mundkar Act is 12-3-1976. 6,000/- and in terms of the said agreement, he was to possess the said dwelling house as his own during the period of 15 years and, at the end of 15 years, the said barrack would belong to the appellants. The appointed date for Mundkar Act is 12-3-1976. Section 2(p) defines mundkar as under :- ""mundkar" means a person who, with the consent of the bhatkar or the person acting or purporting to act on behalf of the bhatkar lawfully resides with a fixed habitation in a dwelling house with or without obligation to render any services to the bhatkar and includes a member of his family but does not include- (i) a person paying rent to the bhatkar for the occupation of the house; (ii) a domestic servant or a chowkidar who is paid wages and who resides in an out-house, house-compound or other portion of his employer's residence; (iii) a person employed in a mill, factory, mine, workshop or a commercial establishment and is residing in the premises belonging to the owner or person in charge of such mill, factory, mine, workshop or commercial establishment, in connection with his employment in such mill, factory, mine, workshop or commercial establishment; and (iv) a person residing in the whole or part of a house belonging to another person or in an out-house existing in the compound of the house, as a care-taker of the said house or for purposes of maintaining it in habitable condition." Explanation.- A person shall be deemed to be lawfully residing with the consent of the bhatkar in a dwelling house if such person resides in it for a period exceeding one year prior to the appointed date and the bhatkar has not initiated any proceedings, during the said period of one year, to evict such person from the dwelling house, through a competent Court of law, on the ground that such person was a trespasser or, having so initiated such proceedings, does not succeed in obtaining a decree for the eviction of such person." The essential ingredients for a person to claim mundkarial right within the said definition are that he should be lawfully residing with the consent of bhatkar with a fixed habitation in a dwelling house. 5. 5. The contention of learned Advocate Shri Kantak is that the appointed date will have relevancy only for the purpose of the deeming clause as contained in Explanation to section 2(p). We do not find any force in the said contention of learned Advocate Shri Kantak. The appointed date on which the status of a person as mundkar has to be determined is 12-3-1976 and if a person on that day satisfies the requirements contained in section 2(p), he is entitled to get registration as a mundkar in terms of section 29(4) of the said Act. On the appointed date the respondent No. 1 did satisfy the said requirements and as such was certainly lawfully residing with the consent of the bhatkar with a fixed habitation in the dwelling house. The contention of learned Advocate Shri Kantak that in view of Agreement dated 17th November, 1969, the residence of the respondent No. 1 in the suit house cannot be considered to be 'lawful' within the meaning of the term 'lawfully residing' in the said Act, is devoid of substance. Section 4 of the said Act clearly provides that no mundkar shall be evicted from his dwelling house except in accordance with provisions of the said Act irrespective of any custom, usage, contract or decree or order of any Court or Tribunal to the contrary. Being so, notwithstanding the conditions in the said Agreement dated 17th November 1969 permitting the respondent No. 1 to reside in the barrack constructed by him for 15 years, only at the end of which the said barrack would belong to the appellants, the occupation of the said barrack by the respondent No. 1 as on 12th March, 1976 and thereafter would be that of a mundkar and, therefore, he would be entitled to register himself as mundkar of the said barrack under section 29(4) of the said Act. Accordingly, we do not find any force in any of the contentions advanced before us by learned Advocate Shri Kantak. 6. For the reasons mentioned above, we do not find any merit in this Appeal and the Appeal is hereby dismissed with costs to be paid by the appellants to the respondent No. 1. Appeal dismissed.