Judgment

DESAI, J. :- Land bearing Survey No. 1052 admeasuring 16 acres situated within the revenue limits of Village Sonai Taluka Nawasa Distt. Ahmednagar, belonged to Tarachand Chopra. Janardhan, the father of the respondent was admittedly the tenant of this land on April 1, 1957, Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, as amended from time to time provided that on the Ist day of April, 1957, styled as the tillers day every tenant shall subject to other provisions of the section and the provisions of the next succeeding sections be deemed to have purchased from his landlord, free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the same date the land held by him as a tenant if other conditions of the section are satisfied. Thus by operation of law. Janardhan, who was the tenant of the land on the tillerss day became the deemed purchaser thereof. Landlord Tarachand died on August 12, 1959. Before his death landlord Tarachand had executed a will and bequeathed the suit land to Ashoklal Gugale who was petitioner No. 5 before the High Court acting upon the will of Tarachand. Ashoklal got his name mutated in the revenue record in respect of suit land in his favour as owner. On the date of mutation, Ashoklal was a minor, Section 32-G imposes a statutory duty on the Agricultual Lands Tribunal (Tribunal for short) to commence enquiry for determining the price of the land which is the subject-matter of compulsory purchase. The Tribunal is required to issue notice to (a) all tenants who under Section 32 are deemed to have purchased the lands, (b) all landlords of such lands and (c) all other persons interested therein to appear before it on the date specified in the notice. Pursuant to such notice when the parties appeared before the Tribunal it was claimed on behalf of landlord that Ashoklal, the recorded owner was a minor and therefore the sale was postponed under Section 32-F. The Tribunal failed to exercise jurisdiction in not noticing the obvious fact that the relevant date on which compulsory sale takes place is April 1, 1957, and on that date Tarachand Chopra the landlord was the recorded owner and he was under no disability as envisaged by Section 32-F and therefore the sale had become effective and could not be postponed under Section 32-F. However, the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction by mis-stating an obvious irrelevant fact that as recorded owner was a minor, compulsory sale was postponed as envisaged by S. 32-F. It appears that the Tribunal again commenced proceedings in the year 1967 under Section 32-G and concluded the proceedings by its order dated July 13, 1967, repeating the jurisdictional errors and thereby failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it. In the meantime minor landlord through his next friend commenced proceedings in Case No. 36 of 1967, in the Court of Tenancy Aval Karkoon having jurisdiction in the area for recovery of possession from tenant Janardhan who had become a deemed purchaser, under Section 14 read with Section 29 of the Tenancy Act. Section 14 enables the landlord to recover possession if tenant commits default in payment of rent for certain number of years. The Tenancy Aval Karkoon entertained the petition which it had no jurisdiction because there was no subsisting relationship of landlord and tenant between Ashoklal and Janardhan as Janardhan had already become deemed purchaser on April 1, 1957. However, the Tenancy Aval Karkoon taking note of the earlier decisions of the Tribunal holding that the date of compulsory sale was postponed directed possession to be handed over to the landlord holding that the tenant had committed default in payment of rent.

2. Mr. Lalit, learned counsel for the appellant at this stage pointed out that in the proceeding under Section 14 read with Section 29 of the Tenancy Act, the tenant Janardhan had made a statement on October 5, 1967, that he had no objection to handing over possession of the land to the landlord as he was ol