IMPORTANT POINT
Where the landlady had exercised her right to take possession of land for personal cultivation, under Section 31(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, during her life time and got possession of half of the land, no right survived under Section 31(3) to her or her successor-in-title to seek the remaining land for personal cultivation having regard to the bar contained in Section 31C of the Act, therefore section 32F(1) of the Act, also did not apply.

Headnote:Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Sections 32F(1A), 31B(1) rw/s 31(1), 29(3), 32(1) - Right of tenant to purchase land where landlord is a widow - Landlord’s right of termination for personal use - Where landlady had exercised her right to take possession for personal cultivation u/s 31 of the Act, during her life time and got possession of half of the land - No right survived u/s 31(3) to her or her successor-in-title to seek the remaining land for personal cultivation having regard to bar contained in Section 31C of the Act - There was no need for tenant to issue any notice of intimation to the landlord or to the successor in title of the landlord proposing to purchase the land u/s 32F (1A) of the Act -
       Held : The dispute in this appeal relates to the question as to whether it was necessary for the tenant to issue a notice of intimation of purchase under Section 32F (1A) of the Act to the successor-in-title of Anusuyabai in regard to the half portion retained by him under section 31 B (1) read with section 31(1) of the Act and whether the failure to do so resulted in forfeiture of the tenants right to the said land or right to purchase the said land under the Act.(Para 9)
       Section 31 relates to landlords right to terminate tenancy for personal cultivation. Sub-section (1) enables the landlord to terminate the tenancy of any land after giving notice and making an application for possession as provided in sub-section (2), if the landlord bona fide requires the land for cultivating it personally. Sub-section (2) stipulates that the notice required to be given under sub-section (1) shall be in writing, shall state the purpose for which the landlord 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.(Para 10.2)
       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 termination again on the ground that the landlord bona fide requires that land for personal cultivation. Section 31D provides that if in consequence of the termination of tenancy under section 31, any part of the land leased is left with the tenant, the rent shall be apportioned in the prescribed manner in proportion to the area of the land left with the tenant.(Para 10.3)
       Section 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.(Para 10.5)
       If Anusuyabai, the widow landlord who died on 23.3.1975, had died without exercising her right under section 31(1) of the Act, and without taking back half the tenanted land, her successor-in-title could have exercised the right of termination for personal use by issuing a notice on or before 23.3.1976 [vide section 31(3) read with section 31(1)&(2) of the Act]; and the tenant - appellant would have had the right to purchase the tenanted land under section 32 till 23.3.1977, provided he gave an intimation to the landlord and the Tribunal on or before 23.3.1977 under section 32F(1) read with section 32F(1A) of the Act. But as Anusuyabai had exercised her right to take possession for personal cultivation, under section 31(1) of the Act, during her life time and got possession of half of the land, no right survived under section 31(3) to her or her successor-in-title to seek the remaining land for personal cultivation having regard to the bar contained in section 31C. If the widow-landlord and her successor-in-title lost the right to terminate the tenancy in regard to the remaining land (having regard to the bar contained in section 31C) and therefore, section 31(3) ceased to apply, it follows that section 32F also did not apply. This is because, the right has to be exercised under section 32F(1), only where section 31(3) applied. If section 32F(1) did not apply, there was no need at all for the tenant to issue any notice of intimation to the landlord or to the successor-in-title of the landlord proposing to purchase the land under section 32F(1A).(Para 12)
       Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked by the High Court and the authorities under the Act. The authorities under the Act proceeded on the assumption that even where a widow-landlord had terminated the tenancy and taken possession of the permissible extent of tenanted land, section 31(3) would continue to apply 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.(Para 13)
       As the Appellants 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.(Para 14)

JUDGMENT

Raveendran, J. - This appeal by special leave is against the order dated 9.7.1999 passed by the Bombay High Court rejecting W.P. No.2599 of 1999 filed by the appellant. It is stated that Sudam Ganpat Kutwal shown as appellant is the P.A. Holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle, that he had filed W.P. No.2599/1999 as the Attorney holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle, that he filed the SLP also as Attorney holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle, but that has not been stated in the cause title due to oversight, though he has specifically mentioned this fact in his rejoinder affidavit filed on 26.4.2000. In view of it, the appellant is permitted 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 appellants 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 Act, seeking possession of the land in the occupation of the Appellant tenant on the ground that she required the land for her personal cultivation. The Tenancy Awal Karkun, Baramati, accepted the claim of the landlord and made an order dated 30.6.1960 directing that possession of half of the land should be delivered to the landlord for her bona fide personal cultivation and possession of the remaining half shall remain with the tenant. In pursuance of it, the appellant delivered half of the land (the eastern portion) to Anusuyabai and continued in possession of the remaining half portion. It is alleged that Anusuyabai sold the land which she got for her personal cultivation, to others under different sale deeds.

2.4) Anusuyabai thereafter filed Tenancy Case No.95/1964 before the Mamlatdar, Baramati, seeking possession of the remaining half of the land on the ground that the appellant had committed certain defaults. The Mamlatdar rejected the said petition by the following order dated 9.2.1965 :

"The applicant has already taken possession of half of the suit land from the opponent tenant. She has now applied to obtain possession of remaining half land on the ground of defaults. The opponent has already paid the rent due to the applicant by money order. The opponent has produced the money order receipt in the matter. It is therefore clear that the opponent is not the intentional defaulter. I cannot therefore grant the request of the applicant to hand over the possession of the remaining half land. The request of the applicant is therefore refused. The application of the applicant is therefore dismissed. The parties should bear their own cost."

2.5) The landlord Anusuyabai died on 23.3.1975, and thereafter, the name of her sister Shevantabai was entered as her successor-in-title in the record of rights. The said Shevantabai filed Application No.72/1994 under Section 32P read with Section 32F of the Act on 19.1.1994 for a declaration that the deemed statutory purchase by the tenant be declared as void and ineffective, as the tenant had failed to fulfil the mandatory requirement of giving a notice of intimation of purchase within the time stipulated, under Section 32F (1A)

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2006 Supreme(SC) 739

Cases Referred (4)

Judicial Analysis