Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948:
s. 29 r/w s. 32 and s. 32 F – Whether the tenant is a deemed purchaser u/s. 29 r/w s. 32 or is covered u/s. 32F – Landlord since was a minor on tillers day, on attaining majority filed application u/s. 31(3) for personal cultivation – Application dismissed – Thereafter, tenant initiated proceedings u/s. 32G – Dismissed by original authority on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions u/s. 32F(1A) – Appellate authority reversed the finding of original authority – Tribunal confirmed the order of original authority – Writ petition by the tenant was dismissed by High Court – Review petition against the order was also dismissed – On appeal, held: On rejection of the application of the landlord u/s. 31, the tenant attained status of a deemed purchaser – On having acquired such status, there was no need for compliance of provisions u/s. 32F(1A). Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A perusal of the First Proviso to Section 32(1) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 read with Section 29 would show that when an application is filed by the landlord for possession and that application is rejected then the tenant is deemed to have purchased the land. Section 32F, on the other hand, entitles the tenant to purchase. This is applicable in a situation where the landlord is a minor and on attaining majority though he has a period of one year from the date on which he attains majority to terminate the tenancy and he does not do so. Then the time starts ticking for the tenant from the expiry of the period of one year from which the minor landlord becomes major. [Para 52][986-A-C]
2. If there is no deemed tenancy within the meaning of Section 32 proviso read with Section 29 then the only alternative available for the tenant is to purchase the right by invoking provision of Section 32F. Both cannot exist together viz. if a person has a deemed status, there is no need for him to apply for purchase under Section 32F. Section 29 read with Sections 32 and 32F deal with two mutually exclusive situations. In a case covered by Section 29 read with Section 32(1) the tenant acquires the deemed status and in a case where a matter is covered by Section 32F, there is no deemed status for the tenant but he has to invoke provision of Section 32F and issue a notice both to the landlord and to the Tribunal within the meaning of Section 32F(1A) and the matter has to be decided by the Authority. [Para 53][986-D, E]
3. In the facts of the present case, if it is established that provisions contained in Section 32 read with Section 29 are applicable in so far as if the court accepts the case of the appellant that the respondent landlord had invoked Section 29 read with Section 32, being a case of a minor who became entitled to apply within a period of one year from the date of attaining majority and the application culminated in the rejection of his case, then the appellant would acquire deemed status. If he acquires deemed status, then there could be no need to invoke Section 32F. Rather there is no need for him to again acquire a status which is conferred upon him by law by a deeming provision. Nothing more is required to be done by the tenant in such a case. [Para 54][986-F, G]
4. The appellant has produced material, the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and also by the Tribunal in Revision. It does show by invoking Sections 29 and 32, the first respondent had applied by projecting the case that he was born in 1948. The application filed by him stood rejected on the basis that the application was barred as birth register showed that he was born in 1947. Though the appellant has not produced certified copies earlier and has produced the same in the High Court along with the review petition, after the judgment was delivered in the writ petition. [Para 55][986-H; 987-A-B]
5. Thus, the appellant admittedly was a tenant of the first respondent. It is a case where there was no need for the appellant to send any intimation within the meaning of Section 32F(1A). He had acquired a deemed status with the rejection of the application filed by the landlord. The appellant was not obliged to do anything further. [Para 65][990-B-C]
6. There is a wealth of documents showing that the respondent litigated the matter at three levels i.e. the application filed by the landlord dated 20.05.1967, the order passed in appeal and still further the order in revision before the Tribunal. Relying on some discrepancy as regards the date of filing of the appeal and the date of the impugned order, the Authorities and the High Court should not have found against the appellant. [Para 64][989-H; 990-A]
Amrit Bhikaji Kale and Ors. v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade and Anr. (1983) 3 SCC 437 : [1983] 3 SCR
237 ; Anna Bhau Magdum, Since Deceased by LRs v. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai (1995) 5 SCC 243 : [1995]
2 Suppl. SCR 259 ; Sudam Ganpat Kutwal v.
Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar (2006) 7 SCC200 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 682 ; Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti Narayan Chavan (Dead) by LRs and Others (2008) 9 SCC 358 : [2008] 13 SCR 508 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.