There is no obligation on the successors of a widow to give notice to the tenant of the fact of death of the widow in proceedings under section 32-F of the Tenancy Act.

JUDGMENT - AGARWAL ASHOK, J.:---Whether the successors of a widow-landlady are obliged to give notice to the tenant of the fact of death of the widow in proceedings under section 32-F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as "the Tenancy Act") is the short question that arises for determination in the present petition.

2. The petitioner is the tenant in respect of the suit lands. The description of the same is given below:---

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Village S. No. Area Assessment

H.A. Rs. Ps.

Nale 240 0-44 1-00

243 1-15-3 5-31

244 0-69-5 8-00

3. The respondents are the landlords. They succeeded to the aforesaid lands under a Will of one Saraswatibai, who was originally the landlady. The husband of Saraswatibai died on 29th June, 1947. She was thus a widow as on 1st April, 1957, the tillers' day. In view of this the tillers' day was postponed during her life time.

4. On 2nd of November, 1973 the petitioner initiated proceedings under section 32-G for fixing the purchase price in respect of the aforesaid lands. Notice of the said proceedings was served upon Saraswatibai on 17th November, 1973. On 6th December, 1973 Saraswatibai died. On 27th November, 1974 the statement of the petitioner was recorded when naturally Saraswatibai was not living and hence was absent. By an order dated 15th March, 1974 the purchase price in respect of the suit land was fixed. On 10th March, 1976 the respondents who had succeeded to the suit lands under the Will of Saraswatibai applied for entering their names in the Revenue records. On 28th September 1976 their names were duly entered vide Mutation Entry No. 2554. On 14th February, 1977 the respondents filed Tenancy Appeal No. 5 of 1977 seeking to challenge the order dated 15th March, 1974 fixing the purchase price. By a judgment and order dated 22nd July, 1976 the said appeal was allowed and the matter was remanded back to the trial Court. By a judgment and order dated 20th February, 1979 the application under section 32-G was allowed and the purchase price was refixed. Being aggrieved the respondent preferred Tenancy Appeal No. 50 of 1979. By an order dated 26th May, 1981 the said appeal was dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved the respondents preferred a revision application to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal Bearing No. MRT-F VI 2/86 (TER. B. 144 of 1966) wherein by a judgment and order dated 6th February, 1987 the revision application was allowed and the impugned order fixing the purchase price was set aside. Taking exception to the above, the petitioner tenant has preferred the present petition.

6. The above chronology of events would show that Saraswatibai who was a widow died on 6th December, 1973. Under section 32-F the respondents had a right to terminate the tenancy of the petitioner within one year. Similarly the petitioner had a right to exercise his right of purchase within a period of one year thereafter. In the instant case neither events took place. It may be that during the life time of the widow the petitioner had applied for purchase of the suit lands. That however, cannot enure against the respondents who had by then not succeeded to the suit lands. The right of purchase, which is contemplated under section 32-F, is to be exercised not during the life time of the widow but after her death. It is to be exercised not against the widow but against her successors. In the present case, the petitioner has not exercised the said right within 2 years from the date of the death of Saraswatibai, i.e. on or about 6th December, 1975. Consequently, the right to purchase has been extinguished.

7. Shri Shah, the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, strenuously contended that Saraswatibai was not living in the village where the lands are situate. She was a resident of Pune. The petitioner had no knowledge of the fact of her death.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document