Sub-section (1-B) of section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, restored the remedy to effectuate the right of tenancy, which had become unenforceable due to the expiry of the limitation period under section 29, and the heirs of the deceased tenant were entitled to the benefit of sub-section (1-B) in the same manner as the tenant himself, as section 40 of the Act was enacted to ensure all benefits for the heirs of any tenant which the tenant himself could have availed of.

Headnote:
BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1948 - SECTION 32(1-B) - HEIRS OF DECEASED TENANT - ENTITLEMENT TO STATUTORY PURCHASE - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40 - SUBSISTING TENANCY - LIMITATION - RESTORATION OF POSSESSION - LEGISLATIVE INTENT - CONSTRUCTION OF STATUTE - LEGAL FICTION OF CONTINUED TENANCY - RATIO DECIDENDI OF CASE LAW - DISTINCTION BETWEEN NEW TENANCY RIGHTS AND RESTORATION OF REMEDY - SCOPE OF SECTION 32(1-B) - RIGHTS OF HEIRS UNDER SECTION 40 - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 29 - EFFECT OF INACTION OF TENANT - EXTINGUISHMENT OF TENANCY RIGHTS - ANALYSIS OF SECTION 32(1-B) - NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE - EFFECT ON SECTION 29 - LEGISLATIVE ASSUMPTION OF CONTINUED TENANCY - DISTINCTION BETWEEN SUB-SECTION (1-A) AND SUB-SECTION (1-B) - EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN LANDS FROM SUB-SECTION (1-B) - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 32(1-B) BY CHANDURKAR, J. - CRITIQUE - LEGISLATIVE INTENT BEHIND SUB-SECTION (1-B) - APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 40 TO HEIRS OF DECEASED TENANT - EXPRESSION "HOLDING THE TENANCY" IN SECTION 40 - MEANING - DISTINCTION BETWEEN PHYSICAL POSSESSION AND RIGHT TO BE RESTORED TO POSSESSION - EFFECT OF EXPIRY OF LIMITATION UNDER SECTION 29 ON HEIRS - CONCLUSION: HEIRS OF DECEASED TENANT ENTITLED TO RIGHTS UNDER SECTION 32(1-B) - MATTER REMANDED TO SINGLE JUDGE FOR DISPOSAL ON MERITS.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a landlord, challenged the order of the Tahsildar, Assistant Collector, and Tribunal, which restored possession of agricultural land to the heirs of a deceased tenant under sub-section (1-B) of section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act). The tenant was dispossessed before 1st April 1957 and died before the insertion of sub-section (1-B) in 1969. The petitioner argued that sub-section (1-B) created a new tenancy right with effect from its enforcement in 1969, and since the tenancy was extinguished after the expiry of the two-year period under section 29 of the Act, the heirs were not entitled to the benefit of sub-section (1-B). The tenant's heirs, on the other hand, contended that sub-section (1-B) restored the remedy to effectuate the right of tenancy, which had become unenforceable due to the expiry of the limitation period under section 29, and that section 40 of the Act was attracted, allowing the heirs to continue the tenancy.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that sub-section (1-B) of section 32 did not create a new tenancy or a new tenancy right but restored the remedy to effectuate the right of tenancy, which had become unenforceable due to the expiry of the limitation period under section 29. The court interpreted sub-section (1-B) in light of the legislative intent to benefit ignorant, decile, gullible, and unfortunate tenants who could not avail of the provisions of sub-section (1-A) by making an application under section 29 within the prescribed period. The court also held that the heirs of the deceased tenant were entitled to the benefits under sub-section (1-B) in the same manner as the tenant himself, as section 40 of the Act was enacted to ensure all benefits for the heirs of any tenant which the tenant himself could have availed of.
Issues: 1. Whether sub-section (1-B) of section 32 of the Act created a new tenancy or a new tenancy right. 2. Whether the tenancy rights of the deceased tenant were extinguished due to the expiry of the limitation period under section 29 of the Act. 3. Whether the heirs of the deceased tenant were entitled to the benefit of sub-section (1-B) of section 32 of the Act. 4. Whether section 40 of the Act was attracted in the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Sub-section (1-B) of section 32 of the Act did not create a new tenancy or a new tenancy right but restored the remedy to effectuate the right of tenancy, which had become unenforceable due to the expiry of the limitation period under section 29. 2. The tenancy rights of the deceased tenant were not extinguished due to the expiry of the limitation period under section 29 of the Act, as sub-section (1-B) of section 32 removed the hurdle of limitation and wiped out the effect of the inaction of the tenant in not seeking possession within the prescribed period. 3. The heirs of the deceased tenant were entitled to the benefit of sub-section (1-B) of section 32 of the Act in the same manner as the tenant himself, as section 40 of the Act was enacted to ensure all benefits for the heirs of any tenant which the tenant himself could have availed of. 4. Section 40 of the Act was attracted in the present case, as the tenancy rights of the deceased tenant were held to be subsisting despite his being out of possession for several years.
Final Decision: The court held that the heirs of the deceased tenant were entitled to the rights under sub-section (1-B) of section 32 of the Act, and remanded the matter to the single judge for disposal on merits.

JUDGMENT - N.B. NAIK, J.:---This writ petition raises an interesting question as to whether the heirs of a deceased tenant are entitled to the benefit of sub-section (1-B) of section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

2. The question arises on the following facts :---

One Rama Krishna Kate was the tenant of four agricultural lands situated at village Venegaon, Tahsil and District Satara. He was dispossesses by the landlord Raghunath Krishna Panchopar, after June 1955 and prior to 1st April, 1957.

3. Sub-section (1-B) of section 32 of the Act was inserted by section 2 Schedule of Maharashtra Act No. 49 of 1969, which came into force on 17th October, 1969. Prior to the coming into force of that sub-section, the tenant Ramu Krishna had died. The Tahsildar started suo motu enquiry under sub-section (1-B) of section 32 are directed restoration of the possession to the heirs of the deceased tenant Ramu Krishna Kate. That order was disturbed by the Assistant Collector but the Tribunal allowed the revision application and restored the order of the Tahsildar Satara. This would now enable the heirs to exercise the right of statutory purchase of the said land in terms of sections 32 to 32-R of Act.

4. The correctness and the legality of that order is challenged by this petition. Special Civil Application No. 330 of 1974.

5. When the matter was called on for hearing before Pendse, J., it appears that reliance was place for the landlords on the judgment of Chandurkar, J., in Special Civil Application No. 2487 of 1973 decided on 1st March, 1978, Pendse, J., thought that the decision requires reconsideration and as in his opinion, the point involved arises in several cases, it was desirable that it should be decided by a Division Bench. The papers were placed before the learned Chief Justice and that is how the matter has come before us.

6. Section (1-B) of section 32 of the Act which is to be interpreted reads as under :---

"(1-B) Where a tenant who has in possession on the appointed day and who on account of his being dispossessed before the 1st day of April, 1957 otherwise than in the manner and by an order of the Tahsildar as provided in section 29, is not in possession of the land on the said date and the land is in possession of the landlord or his successor-in-interest on the 31st day of July, 1963 and the land is not put to a non agricultural use on or before the last mentioned date, then, the Tahsildar shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the said section 29, alter suo motu or on the application of the tenant, hold an inquiry and direct that such land shall be taken from the possession of the landlord or, as the case may be, his successor-in-interest, and shall be restored to the tenant; and thereafter, the provisions of this section and sections 32-A to 32-R (both inclusive) shall in so far as they may be applicable, apply thereto, subject to the modification that the tenant shall be deemed to have purchased the land on the date on which the land is restored to him :

Provided that the tenant shall be entitled to restoration of the land under this sub-section only if he undertakes to cultivate the land personally and of so much thereof as together with the other land held by him as owner or tenant shall not exceed the ceiling area.

Explanation : In this sub-section "successor-in-interest" means a person who acquires the interest by testamentary disposition or devolution on death".

7. It was argued by Mr. Abhyankar and Mr. Karandikar for the landlords that sub-section (1-B) of section 32, creates a new right of tenancy in the land, and statutory purchase thereof with effect from its enforcement on 17-10-1969 and since that right of tenancy was not subsisting when the tenant died. Section 40 of the Act was not attracted, and therefore, the heirs of the deceased tenant are not entitled to the benefit of sub-section (1-B).

8. As against that, it is submitted by Mr. Rane, learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document