Back
2019 Supreme(SC) 151
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M. JOSEPH, JJ.
BAYAJI SAMBHU MALI @ BORATE(D) THROUGH LRS – APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
NAZIR MOHAMMED BALAL ZARI THROUGH GPA HOLDER & ORS – RESPONDENT(S)
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1644-1645 of 2019 [Arising out of SLP(C)No(s).13627-13628 of 2012]
Decided On : 12-02-2019
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Sudhanshu S. Choudhari, AOR Ms. Surabhi Guleria, Adv. Mr. Yogesh K., Adv. Ms. Nandini Singla, Adv. S.R. Ghalta, Adv. Ms. Vatsalya V., Adv.
For Respondent(s): Ms. Shomila Bakshi, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
If a person has a deemed status, there is no need for him to apply for purchase under Section 32F of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
Headnote:(A) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Section 29 read with Sections 32 and 32F – Notice – Deemed purchaser – If there is no deemed tenancy within meaning of Section 32 proviso read with Section 29 then only alternative available for tenant is to purchase right by invoking provision of Section 32F – Both cannot exist together – If a person has a deemed status, there is no need for him to apply for purchase under Section 32F – Section 29 read with Sections 32 and 32F deal with two mutually exclusive situations – In a case covered by Section 29 read with Section 32(1) tenant acquires deemed status and in a case where a matter is covered by Section 32F, there is no deemed status for tenant but he has to invoke provision of section 32F and issue a notice both to landlord and to Tribunal within meaning of Section 32F(1A) and matter has to be decided by Authority. (Para 53)
(B) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 – Section 29 read with Sections 32 and 32F – Notice – Deemed purchaser – If it is established that provisions contained in Section 32 read with Section 29 are applicable in so far as if Court accept case of appellant that respondent landlord had invoked Section 29 read with Section 32, being a case of a minor who became entitled to apply within a period of one year from date of attaining majority and application culminated in rejection of his case then appellant would acquire deemed status – If he acquires deemed status, then there could be no need to invoke Section 32F – Rather there is no need for him to again acquire a status which is conferred upon him by law by a deeming provision – Nothing more is required to be done by tenant in such a case – Appellant was a tenant of first respondent – It is a case where there was no need for appellant to send any intimation within meaning of Section 32F(1A) – He had acquired a deemed status with rejection of application filed by landlord – Appellant was not obliged to do anything further – Impugned decisions passed by High Court set aside and order passed by Collector restored. (Paras 54 and 65)
Facts of Case:
Instant appeals arise under Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. Appellant is tenant and respondent is landlord. On what is described as Tillers day i.e. 01.04.1957, landlord was a minor. Controversy is whether appellant is a deemed purchaser within meaning of Section 29 read with Section 32 of Act or whether this is a case under Section 32F of Act under which tenant is obliged to give a notice under Section 32F(1A). By impugned judgment and order, High Court has dismissed writ petition filed by appellant under Article 227 of Constitution against order dated 09.01.1997 of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and review petition filed against same.
Findings of Court:
We are of the view that there is a wealth of documents showing that respondent litigated matter at three levels i.e. application filed by landlord dated 20.05.1967, order passed in appeal and still further order in revision before Tribunal. Relying on some discrepancy as regards date of filing of appeal and date of impugned order, Authorities and High Court should not have found against appellant.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
K.M. JOSEPH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 227 of the Constitution against the order dated 09.01.1997 of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the review petition filed against the same.
3. These appeals arise under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The appellant is the tenant and the respondent is the landlord. On what is described as Tillers day i.e. 01.04.1957, the landlord was a minor. The controversy, which we are called upon to resolve, is whether the appellant is a deemed purchaser within the meaning of Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Act or whether this is a case under Section 32F of the Act under which the tenant is obliged to give a notice under Section 32F(1A).
4. To appreciate the question which arises before us, it is necessary we should first set out the facts according to the appellant which are related to the impugned order.
5. It is the case of the appellant that the first respondent – landlord claimed that he had attained majority on 10.09.1966 and filed an application bearing Tenancy Case No. 1 of 1967 before the Mamalatdar for his personal cultivation under Section 31(3) of the Act. The appellant claimed that he had received a notice issued by Tenancy Awwal Karkun and was directed to appear on 05.06.1967. His statement was recorded. By order dated 27.07.1967, the application filed by the landlord seeking possession was dismissed.
6. It is the further case of the appellant that the first respondent – landlord filed Tenancy Appeal (bearing No. 148 of 1967) before the Appellate Authority. The said appeal came to be dismissed on 09.03.1968. The respondent – landlord carried the matter further before the Tribunal by way of a Revision Application. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal vide order dated 22.04.1970 dismissed the Revision Application. It is thereafter the tenant- initiated proceedings under Section 32G of the Act in the year 1977. The Original Authority, however, took the view that the tenant did not comply with the provision of Section 32F of the Act which was challenged before the Sub-Divisional Officer who confirmed the order vide order dated 30.09.1978.
7. The Tribunal, on a Revision filed by the appellant, set aside the order and remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry under Section 32G of the Act.
8. By order dated 20.07.1990, the Additional Tehsildar, after noticing certain discrepancies in the extract of Appeal Register relating to the proceeding commenced by the landlord found that the appellant had failed to prove that the landlord had exercised his right to recover possession under Section 31 of the Act and therefore the provision of Section 32F of the Act applies. Since the same had not been complied with, therefore the purchase in favour of the appellant was found to be ineffective.
9. The Appellate Authority, by order dated 24.04.1992, however, found otherwise and allowed the appeal filed by the appellant. The landlord challenged the order of the Appellate Authority. By order dated 09.01.1997, the Tribunal set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and confirmed the order passed by the Additional Tahsildar and found that the appellant had not complied with the provisions of Section 32F(1A). It is against the said order of the Tribunal, the appellant filed the writ petition. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and though the appellant filed a review petition, the same was also rejected.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that this is a case where the matter should be treated as governed by the provisions under Section 29 read with Section 31 of the Act. In a case governed by these provisions, learned counsel pointed out that there is no requirement of issuing notice within the meaning of Section 32F. He relied on Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti
