The period during which a tenant can exercise the right to purchase land under section 32(F) of the Tenancy Act is to be calculated from the date the landlord's interest in the land ceases to exist, as this is the period during which the landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under section 31 of the Act.

Headnote:
TENANCY ACT - SECTION 32(F) - INTERPRETATION - TILLERS DAY - MINOR LANDLORD - SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST - PURCHASE RIGHT OF TENANT - PERIOD OF INTIMATION - SECTION 31(3) - APPLICABILITY - SUMMARY: The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act) provides for the right of tenants to purchase lands under certain conditions. Section 32(F) of the Act deals with the right of a tenant to purchase land where the landlord is a minor, a widow, or a person subject to any mental or physical disability. The issue in this case was whether the period during which the tenant could exercise this right of purchase was to be calculated from the date the landlord attained majority or from the date the landlord's interest in the land ceased to exist. The court held that the period should be calculated from the date the landlord's interest in the land ceased to exist, as this was the period during which the landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy under section 31 of the Act.
Fact of the Case:

Girjabai, a widow, bequeathed two fields to the petitioner, who was a minor at the time of her death. The petitioner attained majority on 13-6-1976. Proceedings under section 32(G) of the Tenancy Act were commenced by the Tahsildar of Niphad. The Tahsildar held that the tenant had failed to give an intimation as contemplated by section 32(F), (1), (a) within the prescribed period, and directed that the lands should be disposed of under section 32(P) of the Tenancy Act. The Additional Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal confirmed this order.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the period during which the tenant could exercise the right of purchase under section 32(F) of the Tenancy Act was to be calculated from the date the landlord's interest in the land ceased to exist, as this was the period during which the landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy under section 31 of the Act. The court also held that the benefit of the extended period provided for a minor landlord under section 31(3) of the Act could not be availed of by a minor who succeeded to the interest of a widow after 31st December 1956.
Issues: Whether the period during which the tenant could exercise the right of purchase under section 32(F) of the Tenancy Act was to be calculated from the date the landlord attained majority or from the date the landlord's interest in the land ceased to exist.
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted section 32(F) of the Tenancy Act in light of the scheme and spirit of the provisions of sections 31 and 32 of the Act. The court held that the period during which the tenant could exercise the right of purchase was to be calculated from the date the landlord's interest in the land ceased to exist, as this was the period during which the landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy under section 31 of the Act. The court also held that the benefit of the extended period provided for a minor landlord under section 31(3) of the Act could not be availed of by a minor who succeeded to the interest of a widow after 31st December 1956.
Final Decision: The court quashed the orders of the Additional Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and held that the tenant had failed to exercise his right of purchase within the prescribed period.

JUDGMENT - Chandurkar M.N., J. : - This petition has been referred to the Division Bench because the view taken by a learned Single Judge of this Court in (Tunga-bhadrabai v. Nanasaheb1) 78 Born. L.R. 395. was doubted by the learned Single Judge who had heard the petition in so far as the decision in Tungabhadrabais case, holds on a construction of section 32(F) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948(hereinafter referred to as the “Tenancy Act”) that if one person of exempted category is succeeded by another person of the exempted category, the Tillers day is postponed till the disability of the successor ceases.

2. It is necessary to briefly state the facts on which the questions raised in the petition have to be decided. Fields Survey Nos. 44 and 45 of village Kotamgaon, Tahsil Niphad, District Nasik, belonged to one Girjabai, who was admittedly a widow and had not exercised her right of resumption under section 31 till her death. Girjabai died on 4-6-1965. By a will executed by her, she bequeathed the two fields in question in favour of the petitioner who was then minor having been born on 13-6-1958. He attained majority on 13-6-1976. .

3. Proceedings under section 32(G) of the Tenancy Act were commenced by the TahsiIdar of Niphad. While determining whether the

respondent- tenant was entitled to purchase the fields, the Tahsildar took the view that the tenant have failed to give an intimation as contemplated by section 32(F), (1), (a) within the prescribed period, the purchase had become ineffective and directed that the lands should be disposed of under section 32(P) of the Teuancy Act. In appeal, the Additional Collector, Nasik,

held that since the petitioner was a minor, the Tillers day was postponed

for the second time till the petitioner attained majority. This order was confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal while dismiss]ng the Revision Application filed by the petitioner.

4. It is contended by Mr. Limaye on behalf of the petitioner that Girjabai was a widow and had not exercised her right under section 31(1)

of the Tenancy Act and the provisions of section 32(F) would come into operation as the petitioner was a minor at the time of her death. According

to the petitioner, he was a successor-in-interest of the widow he could have c excercised right of resumption under section 31 within one year from the death of the widow, the respondent-tenant was bound to exercise his right 0 of purchase as provided by section 32(F), (1) by giving an intimation to the landlord and the Tribunal in the prescribed manner within one year from the 1. 78 Born. L R 395. death of the widow. On the other hand, Mr. Sali, appearing for the tenant, contended vehemently that the successor-in-interest of widow Girjabai was a minor under section 31(3) of the Act, the minor could apply for possession under section 29 within one year from the date on which he attained majority and, therefore, the period during which the tenant was entitled to exercise his right of purchase must be taken to be the period of one year from the date on which the minor attained majority.

5. On a plain reading of provisions of sections 31, 32 and 32(F), the contentions raised on behalf of Mr. Sali cannot be accepted.

6. The scheme of the provisions of Tenancy Act dealing with the right

to apply for personal cultivation and statutory vesting of ownership is very

clear. Section 31 provides for a right of the landlord who is not the landlord

within the meaning of Chapter 3(AA), to give a notice and make an application for possession and terminate the tenancy of any land if be bona fide requires any land for personal cultivation or for any non-agricultural purposes. The notice terminating the tenancy had to be served on the tenant on or before 31st December 1956. The application for possession under section 29 has to be made on or before 31st day of March 1957. A special provision has been made under section 31(3) with regard to the right to terminate the tenancy

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1979 Supreme(Bom) 131

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAYChandurkar M.N. And Deshpande D.B., JJ.Harshavardhan Shrinivas Potnis.... Appellant.VersusMahadu Pundalik Gangurde ... Opponent.Spl. C. Appln. No. 2746 of 1974, decided on 16-7-1979.Advocates appeared:V.M. Limaye, for petitioner.M.V. Sali, for opponent.

Judicial Analysis

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Chandurkar M.N. And Deshpande D.B., JJ.
Harshavardhan Shrinivas Potnis.... Appellant.
Versus
Mahadu Pundalik Gangurde ... Opponent.
Spl. C. Appln. No. 2746 of 1974, decided on 16-7-1979.
Advocates appeared:
V.M. Limaye, for petitioner.
M.V. Sali, for opponent.