TMI Blog2006 (8) TMI 678X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rmitted and directed to amend the cause title so as to describe him as P.A. Holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle. In view of it, the term appellant in this order would refer to Shankar Sitaram Bhosle. 2. The appellant's case in brief is as follows: 2.1) The appellant was inducted as the tenant of agricultural land bearing Gat No. 332 in village Jogwadi, Taluk Baramati, District Pune, measuring 25 acres 9 Guntas, in the year 1954 and was cultivating the same personally. 2.2) Under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ('Act' for short), on the first day of April, 1956 (referred to as 'tillers day'), every tenant was deemed to have purchased the land held by him as tenant, from his landlord, free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon, on the conditions stated therein being fulfilled. The revenue records show that though the appellant was registered as the tenant of the said land on the tillers day, his right to purchase under the deemed purchase was postponed as the landlord was a widow. 2.3) The landlord (Anusuyabai Bhosle) filed an application (Tenancy Application No. 3/1958) under Section 31 read with Section 29 of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enant was, therefore, directed to deliver possession to Shevantabai under Section 32P(2)(b) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant filed an appeal under Section 74 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati Division, in Tenancy Case No. 35/1994. The appellate authority by order dated 2.6.1995, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Tribunal, to hold a detailed inquiry into the matter with reference to the earlier proceedings. 4. The Land Tribunal held an inquiry and made an order dated 30.9.1995, reiterating its earlier finding that the tenant had failed to serve a notice of purchase within the stipulated time and, therefore, had lost the right to purchase the land. The appellant challenged the said order also in appeal (Tenancy Case No. 27/1995) before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati. Shevantabai and the Respondent herein who was representing her then, were the respondents in the said appeal. 5. During the pendency of the appeal, Shevantabai died on 15.4.1996. The said appeal was allowed, in part, by order dated 22.4.1996. The Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Tribunal to the extent that the tenant had failed to exerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the land to her. The said order is challenged by the tenant in this appeal by special leave. 8. The appellant contended that the High Court committed a serious error in holding that the records before it did not show half of the land was ordered to be delivered to the landlord Anusuyabai under Section 31(1) of the Act. He referred to the High Court record which contained a copy of the order dated 2.6.1995 of the SDO in Tenancy Case No. 35/1994 as an annexure to the writ petition, wherein it is clearly stated thus: This mutation states that the landlady was widow and the right of tenants to purchase the suit property is postponed. However, later on there was proceedings under the Tenancy Act.... The intimation of this Case No. 3/1958 in Tenancy Case No. 518/60 is present in lower court's papers. (Page 91) which shows that half of the suit land was ordered to be handed over to the landlady.... The appellant has also produced in this Court, a copy of the order dated 30.6.1960 in Tenancy Case No. 3/1958 directing delivery of possession of half of the land to Anusuyabai. The learned Counsel for the respondent did not dispute the fact that half of the land had in fact, be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... andlord requires the land and shall be served on the tenant on or before 31.12.1956 and a copy of such notice shall, at the same time, be sent to the Mamlatdar, and an application for possession under Section 29 shall be made to the Mamlatdar on or before the 31.3.1957. Sub-section (3) provides as follows: (3) Where a landlord is a minor or a widow, or a person subject to mental or physical disability, then such notice may be given and an application for possession under Section 29 may be made - i) by the minor within one year from the date on which he attains majority; ii) by the successor-in-title of a widow within one year from the date on which her interest in the land ceases to exist; iii) within one year from the date on which mental or physical disability ceases to exist. 10.3) Section 31B provides that in no case a tenancy shall be terminated under Section 31 in such a manner as will result in leaving with a tenant, after termination, less than half the area of the land leased to him. Section 31C provides that the tenancy of any land left with the tenant after the termination of the tenancy under Section 31 shall not at any time afterwards be liable to te ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n 32F deals with the right of tenant to purchase where landlord is minor, or a widow, or a person subject to any mental or physical disability. Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) of Section 32F provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sections, where the landlord is a widow, the tenant shall have the right to purchase such land under Section 32 within one year from the expiry of the period during which such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under Section 31. Sub-section (1A) of Section 32F inserted by Bombay Act 38 of 1957, reads thus: (1A) A tenant desirous of exercising the right conferred on him under Sub-section (1) shall give an intimation in that behalf to the landlord and the Tribunal in the prescribed manner within the period specified in that sub-section : Sub-section (2) of Section 32F provides that the provisions of Section 32 to 32F and 32G to 32R shall, so far as may be possible, apply to such purchase. 10.6) Section 32G requires the Tribunal to issue notice to the parties, as soon as may be, after the tillers' day, record the statement of the tenant, whether he is willing to purchase the land and then determine the price o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the tribunal within one year thereafter, as required under Section 32F(1A). Consequently, where the landlord, being a widow as on 1.4.1957, does not choose to terminate the tenancy for personal cultivation, the tenancy continues during her lifetime and on the death of the widow, her successor-in-title will have the right to terminate the tenancy within one year from the date of death of the widow. The tenant shall have the right to purchase such land, under Section 32, within one year from the expiry of the period during which such successor-in-title of the widow is given the right to terminate the tenancy under Section 31 (3) by giving an intimation as required under Section 32F(1A). f) Where a landlord, who is a widow, exercises her right of termination and secures possession of part of the tenanted land for personal cultivation under Section 31(1) of the Act, then there is no question of her successor-in-title giving a notice of termination within one year from the date on which the widow's interest ceases to exist. When Section 31(3) ceases to apply, Section 32F also will not apply and there is no need for the tenant to give any intimation under Section 32F(1A). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ply and consequently, Section 32F will also apply, and therefore, there was a need for the tenant to give a notice of intimation of purchase under Section 32F(1A), on the death of Anusuyabai. The High Court, however, did not examine this aspect at all as it proceeded on the basis that the widow-landlord did not terminate the tenancy and take possession of the permissible extent of land. 14. As the Appellant's case is governed by Section 31(1), 31B(1) and 31C, rent for the land remaining with the tenant (after the landlord has taken half the land under Section 31(1) of the Act) had to be apportioned as provided in Section 31D, and the liability to pay such rent would continue until price for the land is determined under Section 32G(5) on either the landlord or the tenant approaching the Tribunal, and such price is paid by the tenant. 15. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decisions of this Court in Amrit Bhikaji Kale and Ors. v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade and Anr. [1983]3SCR237 , Anna Bhau Magdum (d) by LRs. v. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai AIR1995SC2164 , Appa Narsappa Magdum (D) through LRs. v. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar and Ors. AIR1999SC1963 and Balchandra Anant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
