1994 Supreme(SC) 1150

1998(8) Supreme 512
Supreme Court of India
(From Bombay High Court)
Mrs. Sujata V. Manohar and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
V.S. Charati -Appellant
versus
Hussein Nhanu Jamadar (dead) by LRs. -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 1874 of 1984
Decided on 18-11-1998
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S.V. Deshpande, Pramit Saxena & Suhas, Advocates.
For the Respondent : P.R. Ramesh and Ms. Promila Chaudhary, Advocates.

Important Point
Section 43-1E of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 would come into operation only if there has been a completed purchase of land by tenant under the provisions of Chapter III; it would not cover deemed purchase.

Headnote:Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948-Sections 43-1A and 43-1E read with Section 31 and 32-G-Right of landlord serving/served in armed forces to terminate tenancy-Application of 43-1E to case falling u/s 43-1A-Application u/s 31(1) filed at a time landlord was minor-Dismissal on ground that u/s 31-B termination of tenancy prohib­ited-Tenant became deemed purchaser - Subsequent proceedings u/s 32-G for determination of purchase price-Dropped on ground landlord was minor and tenant could not purchase land-Decision not challenged-Subse­quent amendment to Act inserting Chapter III-A-Sec­tion 43-1A giving right to persons employed in armed forces to termi­nate tenancy-Land­lord on becoming major joined armed force service and terminated tenancy - Authorities under Act holding in favour of landlord-High Court, however, holding, in favour of tenant-Plea that in view of earlier dismissal of application u/s 31(1) landlord could not get benefit of Chapter III-A-Not sustainable-Section 43-1B over­rides proceeding provisions-Section 43-1E would come into operation only if there is completed purchase - Deemed purchaser not covered by Section 43-1E-Plea that that land having exercised option u/s 31(1) could not have urged in proceedings u/s 32-G his disability as a minor u/s 33(3) also not sustainable the decision having attained finality.

       Held : Under Section 43-1B, it is provided that notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing provisions of this Act, but subject to the provisions of this section, it shall be lawful for a landlord (a member or ex-member of the armed forces) at any time after the commencement of the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1964 to terminate the tenancy of any land and obtain possession thereof in the manner set out in the section. Section 43-1B, therefore, overrides the preceding provisions of the said Act. Section 43-1E would come into operation only if there has been, so as to say, a completed purchase of the land by the tenant under the provisions of Chapter III. It will not be possible to introduce, while interpreting that section, the theory of “deemed purchase” and its ineffectiveness under certain circumstances. What is material is that the vested rights flowing from the purchase of the land by the tenant under Chapter III should not be disturbed. If the rights of the tenant as a purchaser have not been crystallised, the landlord belonging to the armed forces can claim benefit of the provisions of Chapter III-AA. In the present case, as Section 32G proceedings were dropped, the rights of the respondent-tenant as a purchaser have not been crystallised. The very purpose of introducing Chapter III-AA by the Amending Act of 1964 is to give additional benefits to those landlords who are members of the armed forces. The appellant, therefore, in the present case, did not lose his rights under Chapter III-AA because the proceedings under Section 32-G had been dropped, and the tenant remained only a deemed purchaser and could not be called a purchaser as contemplated under Section 43-1E. (Paras 5, 7 & 8)

       Contention that in the present case, the appellant having exercised his choice under Section 31(1), could not have urged in the proceedings under Section 32G his disability as a minor under Section 31(3). The order of 31.5.1961 of the Agriculture Lands Tribunal, however, was not challenged by the respondent. The order of 31.5.1961 has become final and the decision rendered by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal as between the appellant and the respondent is binding on both the parties. A decision, simply, because it may be wrong, would not thereupon become a nullity. It would continue to bind the parties unless set aside. The effect of the decision of 31.5.1961 on the parties, therefore, cannot be ignored. In the present case, since the tenant could not complete his purchase by reason of the proceed­ings under Section 32G being dropped, he cannot now contend that the decision has no legal effect or that the proceedings under Section 32G ought to have been completed and, therefore, he should be looked upon as a purchaser. (Para 9)

       Further, under Section 32F(1A) if a tenant holding land from a landlord who was a minor has not been given intimation at the commencement of the Bombay Tenan­cy and Agricultural Lands Amendment Act, 1969, but being in possession of the land on such commencement, is desirous of exercising the right conferred on him under sub-section (1), he may give such intimation to the landlord and the Tribunal within a period of two years from the commencement of the Act. Therefore, the tenant was given an additional opportunity to give intimation after the commencement of the Amendment Act of 1969. Even this opportunity was not availed of by the tenant. The respondent has thus continued as a tenant. His tenancy can be terminated under Section 43-1B. (Para 10)

       Held consequently, the High Court was not right in coming to the conclusion that the application of the appellant was barred under Section 43-1E. (Para 11)