Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – s.32 as amended by Act 15 of 1957 and ss.32F, 32G – Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Laws (Amendment) Act, 1969 – s.32(1)F(a) – One ‘B’ was the landlord of the suit property – ‘B’ expired leaving behind his widow as his legal heir and representative – Predecessor of the appellants were tenants of ‘B’ prior to 1956-57 i.e. prior to 01.04.1957 (Tillers’ Day) – Proceedings for declaring the appellants as purchaser u/s.32G were initiated against the landlady, since, she was a widow, the proceedings were suspended during her lifetime – Landlady expired on 07.05.1999, she had executed her last Will in favour of respondent no.1 – In 2008, appellants came to know that landlady had expired, they filed an application before Addl. Tahsildar for fixing purchase price of the suit property u/s.32G of the 1948 Act, which was allowed – However, SubDivisional Officer, held that appellant ought to have issued notice u/s.32F within the time as prescribed and no notice having been issued within the time as prescribed, the appellants had lost right of purchase – Order was confirmed by the Revenue Tribunal – Writ petition filed against the order of the Tribunal was also dismissed – On appeal, held: The ratio of Supreme Court judgments in Appa Narsappa Magdum, Sudam Ganpat Kutwal and Tukaram Maruti Chavan cases support the respondents that the appellants had not exercised their right to purchase u/s.32F(1) r/w. (1A) within the time prescribed, thus, the right of purchase of the tenant was lost – However, amendment in s.32(1)F(a) added by the 1969 Act expressly covered a case of landlord who was minor and has attained majority – Intimation by a minor landlord who has attained majority has been made a statutory obligation of the landlord so that tenant may exercise his right of purchase – The other two categories i.e. widow or a person subject to mental or physical disability have not been expressly included in amendment Act 1969 – The same benefit needs to be extended in other two categories – Further, the judgments in three cases mentioned were rendered by the two-Judge Benches in which cases the amendment made by 1969 Act were neither raised or considered – Thus, ratio laid down in these judgments needs to be reconsidered and explained – Following questions referred to larger Bench for consideration – (i) Whether the object and purpose of amendment made in Section 32F(1)(a) by Amendment Act of 1969 is also relevant and applicable for exercise of right to purchase by a tenant of landlord who was widow or suffering from mental and physical disability on Tillers’ Day; (ii) Whether the successor-ininterest of a widow is also obliged to send an intimation to the tenant of cessation of interest of the widow to enable the tenant to exercise his right of purchase; (ii) In the event the answer to above question
(1) or (2) is in affirmative, whether decision of this Court in Appa Narsappa Magdum, Sudam Ganpat Kutwal and Tukaram Maruti Chavan needs reconsideration and explanation.
Referring the matters to larger Bench, the Court HELD: 1. The ratio of the Appa Narsappa Magdum (D) Through LRS. v. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar and Others, Sudam Ganpat Kutwal, Power-of-Attorney-Holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle v. Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar (Dead) by LR. Maruti Shankar Pachpute and Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti Narayan Chavan (Dead) by LRS. and Others, and other judgments can be restated in following words: (i) For a landlord suffering from a disability on the Tillers Day i.e. 01.04.1957, the deemed purchase shall be suspended; (ii) Landlord suffering from a disability has a right under Section 31(3) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 to give notice of termination of tenancy and file an application for possession; (iii) Under Section 31(3), a minor, within one year from date on which he attains majority; a successor-in-title of a widow within one year from the date on which her interest in the land ceases to exist; and landlord within one year from the date on which his/her mental or physical disability ceases to exist can also give an application for termination of tenancy and possession; (iv) Under Section 32F tenant has right to purchase where landlord was minor or a widow or a person subject to mental or physical disability within one year from the expiry of the period during which such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under Section 31; (v) The tenant, MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS.
in event, does not exercise his right of purchase within the period as prescribed under Section 32F(1)(a), his/her right to purchase shall be lost. [Para 25][1295-A-F]
2. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that landlady died on 07.05.1999 and within one year thereafter her successorin-title did not exercise his right under Section 31(3) and thereafter within one year tenant has not given any intimation for purchase as contemplated by Section 32(F). The question to be answered is as to whether in the above facts, Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue Tribunal as well as the High Court were right in their conclusion that right of the tenant, i.e. the appellant has lost, he having not issued any intimation for purchase of the land within one year from expiry of the period as contemplated under Section 31(3). [Para 26][1295-E-H]
3. The ratio of this Court as noticed above especially in judgments of this Court in Appa Narsappa Magdum, Sudam Ganpat Kutwal and Tukaram Maruti Chavan clearly support the respondents that the appellants having not exercised their right to purchase under Section 32F(1) read with (1A) within the time prescribed the right of purchase of the tenant is lost. But there is one aspect of the matter which needs to be noted and has not been considered in the above judgments rendered by two-Judge Benches of this Court which we shall notice hereinafter. [Para 27][1296-A-C]
4. The 1948 Act was amended by Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Laws (Amendment) Act, 1969. Section 32F was also amended by the above Amendment Act, 1969. Amendment in Section 32(1)F(a) added by Act No.49 of 1969 expressly covered a case of landlord who was minor and has attained majority. Intimation by a minor landlord who has attained majority has been made a statutory obligation of the landlord so that tenant may exercise his right of purchase. The other two categories which are a widow or a person subject to mental or physical disability have not been expressly included in the amendment incorporated in Act 49 of 1969. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amendment given in 1969 as well as the express provisions of such amendment are for the purposes and object to enable the tenant to exercise right of purchase. When for one category of landlord i.e. minor it is mandated that he will intimate the tenant after he attained the majority so that tenant may be enabled to exercise the right of purchase, the same object has to be read in two other categories of landlord that is the successor-in-title of a widow and a landlord whose mental or physical disability has been ceased. When the legislative object is to facilitate a tenant of a disabled landlord after cessation of disability to exercise right of purchase, the same benefit needs to be extended to other two categories of disabled landlord. [Paras 28, 32][1296-B-C; 1297-G-H; 1298-A-D]
Appa Narsappa Magdum (D) Through LRS. v. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar and Others (1999) 4 SCC 443 ; Amrit Bhikaji Kale and Others v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade and Another (1983) 3 SCC 437 : [1983] 3 SCR
237 ; Appa Narsappa Magdum (D) Through LRS. v. Akubai Ganpati Nimbalkar & others, (1994) 4 SCC
443 ; Sudam Ganpat Kutwal, Power-of-Attorney-Holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle v. Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar (Dead) by LR. Maruti Shankar Pachpute, (2006) 7 SCC 200 : [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 – referred to.
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.