Back
1983 Supreme(Bom) 125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Smt. Sujata Manohar, J.
Sitaram Balwant Patil others.... Appellants.
Versus
Madhukar Gopal Kulkarni others.... Respondents.
Second Appeal No. 432 of 1980, decided on 21-4-1983.
Advocates appeared :
P.S. Warke, for appellant.
Important Points
Subject
Land Law - Agricultural Tenancy
Act Referred
Headnote
BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1948 - SECTION 32, 88-C - DEEMED PURCHASE OF LAND BY TENANT - EXEMPTION FROM DEEMED PURCHASE - APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 88-C - EFFECT ON DATE OF DEEMED PURCHASE - REASONABLE RENT - RIGHT TO CLAIM - PERIOD OF TENANCY.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants, tenants of the respondents, claimed to have purchased the lands in question from the respondents on 1st April, 1957, under section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and thus ceased to be tenants from that date. The respondents argued that the appellants' ownership was postponed due to their application under section 88-C, which was rejected on 27th March, 1962, and that they were liable to pay rent for the period from 1st April, 1957 to 31st March, 1960.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that under section 32, the appellants were deemed to have purchased the lands on 1st April, 1957, and that there was no provision in the Act postponing the date of deemed purchase due to an application under section 88-C. The court further held that the respondents' right to claim reasonable rent could only arise during the period when the appellants were their tenants, which ended on 1st April, 1957.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellants' ownership of the lands was postponed due to their application under section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948? 2. Whether the respondents were entitled to claim reasonable rent from the appellants after 1st April, 1957.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, provides for the deemed purchase of land by tenants on 1st April, 1957, and there is no provision in the Act postponing the date of deemed purchase due to an application under section 88-C. 2. The right to claim reasonable rent under section 12 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, can only arise during the period when the appellants were the tenants of the respondents, which ended on 1st April, 1957.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment and order of the lower court was set aside, and the claim in Suit No. 59 of 1961 was dismissed. The respondents were ordered to pay the appellants the costs of the appeal.
2. Regular Civil Suit No. 59 of 1961 which was filed by the respondents against the appellants was dismissed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division Islampur. The respondents filed an appeal being Civil Appeal No. 62 of 1978. The Extra Assistant Judge, Sangli, by his judgment and Order date 27th June, 1979 allowed the appeal with costs. The present second appeal is filed from the judgment and Order of the Extra Assistant Judge, Sangli dated 27th July, 1979.
3. According to the respondents and application had been made by them under section 88-C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, sometime after 1st April, 1947 which was numbered as Tenancy Case No. 492 of 1958. The application was ultimately rejected in appeal on 27th March, 1962. According to the respondents, by virtue of the pendency of the application under section 88-C, the appellants did not become the owners of the lands in question until after the rejection of the said appeal filed in the application under section 88-C i.e. till 27th March, 1962. The appellants, therefore, were their tenants during the three years 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60. The appellants are, therefore, liable, according to the respondents to pay to the respondents the rent claimed herein. This contention of the respondents does not appear to be correct. Under section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, on 1st April, 1957 every tenant shall be deemed to have purchased from his landlord the land held by him as tenant if he satisfies the requirements of that section. Under section 88-C(1) nothing in section 32 to 32-R shall apply to the land leased by any person if such land does not exceed an economic holding and the total annual income of such person including the rent of such land does not exceed Rs. 1500/-. Under section 88-C(2) a person eligible for such exemption is required to make an application as provided therein. For the present purpose, the proviso to section 88-C(1) and other provisions of section 88-C are not material. There are certain provisions in section 32 as a result of which the date of the deemed purchase by the tenant from the landlord is postponed. We are not concerned with the details of the provisions relating to the postponement of this date except to note that in these provisions there is no mention of the date of deemed purchase getting postponed as a result of any application being made under section 88-C. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in the case of (Sri Ram Ram Narain Madho v. The State of Bombay)1, reported in 61 Bom.L.R. 811 at page 824, the title of the landlord to the land passes immediately to the tenant on the tiller's day i.e. 1st of April, 1957 and there is a completed purchase or sale thereof as between the landlord and the tenant on that date. The inter-relationship between section 32 and section 88-C was examined by a Full Bench of this High Court in the case of (Anna Balgonda Patil v. Vasant Raghunath Kulkarni)2, reported in 64 Bom.L.R. 591. The Full Bench, at page 596, was observed that there is no provision in section 88-C or in any other part of the Act whereunder the tenant sha
