Judgment : Heard Mr. Shirin Naik, learned Counsel for the appellants and Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.1. None for the other respondents, though served. 2. By this appeal, the appellants take exception to the judgment and order dated 03/07/2004 passed by Ist Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No.48/2000 by which the appeal preferred by the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 09/03/2000 passed in Regular Civil Suit No.15/1974 by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vasco-da-Gama, has been dismissed. 3. The appellants and respondents no.2 and 3 are the legal representatives of Basu Dipu Naik against whom respondent no.1 filed the above suit seeking declaration that lease deed executed by the plaintiffs with said Basu Dipu Naik on 06/11/1966 had expired. The plaintiffs also claimed damages and mesne-profits. The suit was contested by said Basu Dipu Naik, who died during pendency of the suit. Thereafter, the legal representatives of the original defendant contested the suit. 4. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: “1. Does the plaintiff proves that the suit property was leased to the defendant for six years from the year 1966? 2. Does the plaintiff proves that the defendant has not paid the arrears of claimed by him? 3. Is the plaintiff entitled to receive Rs.2,800/-from the defendant as arrears of mesne profits? 4. Does the defendant proves that the suit land was permanently leased to him by the plaintiff? 5. Does the defendant proves that the suit is bad for want of proper notice? 6. What relief? What order?” Additional Issue “1. Does the defendant prove that he being a lessee/tenant of the suit property this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit in view of the provisions of Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy (Fifth Amendment) Act, 1976 and that the issue whether a person is a tenant or not has to be necessarily decided by the Mamlatdar?” 5. The trial Court decreed the suit on the ground that the lease was duly terminated and consequently, ordered eviction and also mesne-profits. 6. Appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No.48/2000 was preferred by the legal representatives of the original defendant to District Court, South Goa, Margao which was made over to 1st Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao. The trial Court decreed the suit on the ground that the lease was duly terminated and consequently, ordered eviction and also mesne-profits. 6. Appeal bearing Regular Civil Appeal No.48/2000 was preferred by the legal representatives of the original defendant to District Court, South Goa, Margao which was made over to 1st Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao. Learned lower appellate Court by judgment and decree dated 03/07/2004 dismissed the appeal after concurring with the findings given by the trial Court. 7. Present appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the approach of the Courts below in proceeding to decide the suit by respondent no.1, without the question whether the original defendant Basu Dipu Naik was an agricultural tenant of the suit property in terms of the G.D.D. Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 as amended by G.D.D. Agricultural Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1976 being adjudicated upon by the learned Mamlatdar, is illegal, arbitrary and/ or perverse ?” 8. Mr. Shirin Naik, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that both the Courts below could not have decreed the suit in view of the fact that the original defendant Basu Dipu Naik had raised an issue that he was the tenant in respect of the suit property and as such, in terms of Section 58 of Goa, Daman and Diu Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 ('the Act' for short), both the Courts had no jurisdiction to decide the issue of tenancy. Learned Counsel further submitted that Section 7 of the Act was amended with effect from 21/11/1990 conferring exclusive jurisdiction upon the Mamlatdar to decide as to whether the person was tenant. Learned Counsel further invited my attention to the judgment and order dated 19/06/1991 passed by Administrative Tribunal, Goa in Tenancy Revision Application No.24/1979 by which the revision preferred by Basu Dipu Naik challenging the orders passed by Mamlatdar as well as Deputy Collector refusing to exercise jurisdiction to declare him as tenant, was set aside in the light of the amendment carried out to the Act and the Tribunal remanded the matter to Mamlatdar of Mormugao to decide the application filed by the applicant for declaration. It appears that there is no dispute that at the relevant time, in view of prevalent legal position, Basu Dipu Naik was directed to file an application seeking declaration of tenancy before the Mamlatdar. It appears that there is no dispute that at the relevant time, in view of prevalent legal position, Basu Dipu Naik was directed to file an application seeking declaration of tenancy before the Mamlatdar. Pursuant thereto, he had filed an application which was dismissed by the Mamlatdar and the appeal preferred by him to Deputy Collector was also dismissed. Both the authorities dismissed the application on the ground that they had no jurisdiction to decide the issue about past tenancy. 9. Learned Counsel further submitted that in view of the judgment in Tenancy Revision Application No.24/1979 dated 19/06/1991, the impugned decrees passed by both the Courts below are without jurisdiction and are liable to be set aside and the matter remanded to civil Court for fresh decision depending upon the outcome of the application filed by the appellants seeking declaration of tenancy. Learned Counsel further submitted that pursuant to remand order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, the Mamlatdar has passed an order on the ground that the application at the instance of the legal representatives of the original defendant was not maintainable and the appeal has been preferred to the Deputy Collector against the said order passed by the Mamlatdar. 10. Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel for respondent no.1 fairly conceded that in view of amendment carried out to the Act, both the decrees passed by the trial Court and lower appellate Court are unsustainable in law. Learned Counsel fairly submitted that the trial Court will have to decide the suit on the basis of the findings given by the authorities under the Act and, therefore, he will have no objection if the matter is remanded to civil Court. 11. Having considered the rival submissions and having perused the record, I am of the considered opinion that the submission made on behalf of the appellants that both the decrees are liable to be set aside, deserves to be accepted in view of the amendment carried to the Act in the year 1991 by which the jurisdiction has been vested in Mamlatdar to declare as to whether the person was tenant in respect of the property. Admittedly, the proceedings initiated seeking declaration are pending before the appropriate authorities and, therefore, civil Court will have to await the decision of the authorities under the Act and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with the order passed by the authorities under the Act. Admittedly, the proceedings initiated seeking declaration are pending before the appropriate authorities and, therefore, civil Court will have to await the decision of the authorities under the Act and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with the order passed by the authorities under the Act. 12. In view of the above, the judgments and decrees dated 09/03/2000 and 03/07/2004 passed by both the Courts below are liable to be quashed and set aside. The substantial question of law formulated is answered in favour of the appellants. The judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are quashed and set aside and the matter remanded to learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Vasco-da-Gama for fresh decision. Learned Civil Judge shall decide the suit depending upon the outcome of the proceedings initiated by the appellants seeking declaration of tenancy in respect of the suit property. 13. This Court by order dated 21/10/2005 had granted interim relief in favour of the appellants subject to certain terms and conditions. Pursuant to said order, the appellants have deposited an amount ordered to be deposited till disposal of the appeal. The Decree Holder was permitted to withdraw the said amount by furnishing solvent surety to the satisfaction of Registrar. 14. Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel states that till date respondent no.1 has not withdrawn the amount and respondent no.1 may be permitted to withdraw the said amount unconditionally but without prejudice to its rights and contentions. 15. Respondent no.1 is permitted to withdraw the said amount unconditionally without prejudice to its rights and contentions and withdrawal of the said amount by respondent no.1 shall not be construed as admission of right of the appellants by respondent no.1. 16. It is made clear that respondent no.1 is permitted to withdraw the said amount unconditionally, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 17. Liberty to move the trial Court after the issue of tenancy is decided by the appropriate authority under the Act. 18. The appeal stands allowed in aforesaid terms and disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.