IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 125 OF 2009 SMT. MARIA FERNANDES ... Petitioner Versus MR. AGNEL COSTA AND 4 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Arun Bras De Sa,Advocate for the petitionr. Mr. M. B. D'Costa, Senior Advocate with Mr. J.A.Lobo, Advocate for the respondents. Coram:- C. L. PANGARKAR, J. Date:- 4th April, 2009 P.C. Heard Shri De Sa, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D'Costa, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents. 2. The respondents herein had instituted a civil suit against the present petitioner for eviction. In that suit, the present petitioner raised a plea that he was a mundkar of the suit house. Since such an issue was raised by the present petitioner, the said issue was referred by the Civil Court to the Mamlatdar. The Mamlatdar upon recording the evidence, found that the present petitioner was not a mundkar, but was a domestic servant. The said finding was confirmed by the Additional Collector. The petitioner filed a revision before the Administrative Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal concurred with the finding recorded by the Mamlatdar as well as the Additional Collector and dismissed the revision application on 17.01.2005. 3. Since the petitioner was held not to be a mundkar, the Civil Court decreed the suit as against the petitioner and directed his eviction. Against the judgment and decree of eviction, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The District Judge confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in the month of September, 2008. 4. The petitioner now wants to challenge the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal, Goa passed on 17.01.2005. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that the finding of the Courts below, is not correct in as much as there is no evidence to hold that the petitioner was a domestic servant. He submits that the finding of the Courts below that he was a domestic servant, is patently perverse. According to him, the Courts below should have considered that the petitioner was residing in the suit house even prior to coming into force this Act and as such he was a mundkar. He submits that there is evidence available to show that the present petitioner was helping the original bhatkar in cultivating the land etc. and that would show that the status of the present petitioner was that of a mundkar. 5. There are three concurrent finding that the petitioner is not a mundkar. Such finding was recorded by the Administrative Tribunal long back in the year 2005. That finding was not challenged by the petitioner by filing writ petition immediately. It is only after lapse of four years and after decree was confirmed by the District Court that this writ petition has been filed. It is, therefore, obvious that the writ petition suffers from delay and latches. The learned Counsel has submitted that the delay and latches would not come in the way of the petitioner because the petitioner has raised the question of law. I do not find that any question of law, is involved in the matter. What was urged before me, is only the question of fact and as a fact, the Courts have found that the status of the petitioner, was that of the domestic servant and the domestic servant is exempted under the said Act. Since there are three concurrent findings and there is delay and latches on the part of the petitioner, the petition cannot be entertained. It is dismissed in limine. C. L. PANGARKAR, J. SMA