Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(P. S. Malvankar J )
KONDIBA - Petitioner.
v.
GAJANAN -Respondent.
Advocate Appeared
For petitioner - V. N. Damle and V. N. Gadgil.
For opponent No. 1 - M. L. Pends6.
TENANCY - TERMINATION - PURCHASE OF LAND BY TENANT - CERTIFICATED LANDLORD - NOTICE AND APPLICATION FOR POSSESSION - PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 33C OF BOMBAY TENANCY AND AGRICULTURAL LANDS ACT, 1948 - INTERPRETATION - APPLICABILITY TO CERTIFICATED LANDLORDS BELONGING TO SPECIAL CATEGORIES MENTIONED IN SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 33B - RIGHT OF EXCLUDED TENANT TO PURCHASE LAND - CONDITIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an excluded tenant, challenged the order passed by the Deputy Collector and confirmed by the Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, holding that he had lost his right to purchase the land because he did not give intimation in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 33C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The petitioner contended that he was not required to inform the landlord and the Tribunal within one year as required by sub-section (4) of section 33C, as the case was governed by the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 33C and not by the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 33C.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 33C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, is an independent provision and not merely an exception to the main enactment. It applies to the cases of excluded tenants of those landlords who are enabled to give notice and make applications under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 33B, whether or not they are ordinary landlords or the landlords belonging to the special categories mentioned in the first part of sub-section (4) of section 33B. Therefore, an excluded tenant of a certificated landlord belonging to the category of persons subject to any physical or mental disability, is not required to inform his landlord and the Tribunal within one year as required by sub-section (4) of section 33C, if such a landlord has given notice and made an application as required by sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 33B and his application is finally rejected.
Issues: Whether the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 33C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, applies to the cases of excluded tenants of those landlords who are enabled to give notice and make applications under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 33B, whether or not they are ordinary landlords or the landlords belonging to the special categories mentioned in the first part of sub-section (4) of section 33B.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court interpreted the proviso to sub-section (1) of section 33C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and held that it is an independent provision and not merely an exception to the main enactment. It applies to the cases of excluded tenants of those landlords who are enabled to give notice and make applications under sub-sections (1) and (3) of section 33B, whether or not they are ordinary landlords or the landlords belonging to the special categories mentioned in the first part of sub-section (4) of section 33B.
Final Decision: The Court set aside the order passed by the Deputy Collector and confirmed by the Collector and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, and sent the proceeding back to the Deputy Collector for disposal according to law in the light of the findings recorded above, without prejudice to other rights and contentions, if any of the parties on both the sides.
2. However. proceedings were started under section 33C of the Act suo motu by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal. The Agricultural Lands Tribunal found that the present petitioner tenant did not give any notice of purchase to respondent No. 1-landlord and, therefore, forfeited his right to purchase. The Tribunal, therefore, passed an order that the land should be disposed of in accordance with the provisions of section 32P of the Act. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order before the Collector, but the Collector also took the same view and dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner went in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and the Revenue Tribunal also confirmed the order passed by the Collector holding that the petitioner had forfeited his right to purchase because he did not give notice of purchase to respondent No. I-landlord. While passing this order, the Revenue Tribunal has observed thus in its judgment:
"The landlord is a disabled person within the meaning of section 33B and he is a certificated landlord. He did apply under section 338 and failed in obtaining the possession of the land for his personal cultivation. Thus the right to purchase the land accrued to the tenant and he was entitled to exercise his right within one year from the date on which the landlord's application under section 33B was finally decided, in accordance with the provisions of proviso to sub section (4) of section 33C. According to the proviso to sub-section (3) of section 33C, where the tenancy is terminated by a certificated landlord and application for possession is made in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 33B, the tenant shall within one wear from the date on which such application is finally decided be entitled to purchase the land which he is entitled to retain in possession after such decision. Within one year from the decision of the landlord's application under section 33B the tenant was entitled to purchase the land. Sub-section (4) of section 33C further lays down that:-
“An excluded tenant desirous of exercising the right conferred on him under sub. section (3) shall accordingly inform the landlord and the Tribunal in the prescribed manner within the period of one year during which he is entitled to exercise such right under sub-section (3).'
The proviso to section 33C clearly lays down that the tenant has to exercise his right and inform the landlord and the Tribunal within the period of one year during which he is entitled to exercise his right under sub-section (3). It is thus evident from the provisions of sub-section (4) that the tenant had to exercise his right."
3. Later on, at the end of para. 5, the Revenue Tribunal has observed thus:
"In the present case, the tenancy was terminated by the certificated landlord and he had filed a suit for possession under se
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
