IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 269 OF 2008 MRS. MILENA RODRIGUES AND 3 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus MRS. BASILIA RODRIGUES AND 2 ORS., ... Respondents Mr. Dajvip Patkar, Advocate for the petitioners. Coram:- S.A. BOBDE, J. Date:- 5th June, 2008 P.C. The petitioners have challenged the order of the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Mapusa dated 15.1.2008, by which the application of the petitioners for deletion of the issue of mundkarship has been dismissed. The suit is filed by the petitioners for eviction of the respondents from the suit house which is House No.2/84 and for restoration of the suit house. The defendants have squarely raised a plea that they are mundkars of the suit house and therefore, the issue was referred to the Mamlatdar for decision. 2. Mr. Patkar, relying on the Judgment in Naguesha Sitaram Naik and ors. vs. Rosetta Maria Ana Alvares e Brito and ors., reported in AIR 1975 Goa, Daman & Diu 40, submitted that the issue of mundkarship need not be referred to the Mamlatdar in the present case because the petitioners have only sought for enforcement of the agreement by which the respondents have agreed to shift, along with their mundkarial rights, from one property to another. Hence, according him, this does not create any issue of mundkarship. There is no merit in this contention because the respondents are within their rights to contend that the agreement against them is not enforceable and that, in any case, this results in infringement of their rights over the property over which they have possession today as a mundkar and, therefore, the issue of mundkarship needs to be referred to the Mamlatdar. 3. Needless to say that the eviction of a mundkar can only be in accordance with the decision of the Mamlatdar under the Mundkar Act. The decision relied on by the petitioners, referred to above, is an authority for the proposition that such an agreement to shift mundkarial rights cannot raise issue about existence of mundkarship and that therefore, such an issue needs to be referred to the Mamaltdar for decision in accordance with the Mundkar Act. 4. This is not a fit case for interference. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. S.A. BOBDE, J. ssm.