2001 Supreme(Bom) 1107

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
J.G. Chitre, J.
Sadashiv Mahadeo Kumbhar .... Petitioner.
Versus
Balkrishna Bhikaji Walimbe another.... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 1757 of 1988, decided on 5-12-2001.
Advocates appeared :
Karandikar and A.A. Kumbhakoni, for petitioner.
Y.S. Jahagirdar and Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh, for respondent No. 1.

Headnote:Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Sections 32-G and 72 - Mam-latdar s Courts Act, 1906, Sections 7 and 16 - Review - Right to - Avai-lability of to ALT s Court - Purchase price fixed in absence of landlord - Order fixing such price set aside in review - No review provided under Section 32-G of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act contended - Held - Plea not tenable Mamlatdar s Court under Sections 7 and 16 of Mamlatdar s Courts Act empowered under CPC to set aside expects judgment or orders passed by it - Land lord has right to move Court for review under Section 32-G (3) of Bombay Tenancy Act. - Sub-section (1) of Section 32 provides for the action to be taken by the ALT namely that the notices are to be sent to the tenant and landlord and also as far as practicable other persons interested in it. In view of the provisions of sub-section (2) their statements are to be recorded. It is under duty of recording statements of tenants where he is or he is not willing to purchase the land held by him as tenant. Thereafter, comes provisions of sub-section (3) which provides that wherein tenant fails to appear or make his statements that he is not willing to purchase the land the tribunal shall by an order in writing declare that such tenant is not willing to purchase the land and that purchase is ineffective provided that if such order passed in default of any party (emphasis provided) the order so passed, may within 60 days from the date of which the order was communicated to him apply for review of the same.

        While dealing with the entitlement of the tenancy the Single Bench of this Court has given consideration to the necessary provisions of Section 32-G of the Act in Vishnu Ganu Patil s case. The entitlement of the landlord for such review sought might not have been considered by the Single Bench because there might not have been occasion to deal with it or that point was not for consideration at all. But as there is no discussion or ponderation on that point in the said judgment the Single Bench has not adjudicated against the proposition which has been submitted before this Court by Shri Deshmukh. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 has not been enacted for the purpose dispossessing the landlords from their lawful holdings of the land without due process of law. The said Act has not been brought for usurping their lands. It does not mean that the landlords are to be dispossessed from their lands without following the due process of law and enquiry as provided. The said provisions have been made with the object of protecting the interest of landlords also. True that it is giving leaning scales to the tenants and giving leaning scale towards protection of their lawful rights in respect of the lands held by them on or before the tiller s day. If the landlord desires to move an application for the purpose of bringing effect the notice of the ALT that its judgment and order happens to be inconsistent with the facts and material brought before it in the particular case, if that happens to be inconsistent with the provisions of existing law, the ALT is empowered to entertain such review application though filed by the landlord because the words any party whose default the order was passed includes the landlord also. It is to be noted that he happens to be a party in the said lis when the application is presented which is to be treated as a plaint. Like plaintiff, tenant, applicant non applicant, petitioner, opponent, landlord is the necessary party in such litigation and he is very much included in the phraseology used in sub-section (3) of Section 32-G and there cannot be any doubt about it. This Court for the purpose of removing the clouds of doubt on account of absence of verdict in Vishnu Ganu Patil s case declares that like tenant the landlord is also entitled to move an application for review in view of sub-section (3) of Section 32-G of Tenancy Act, more particularly for avoiding such arguments in future.