High Court of Judicature at Bombay Dismisses Writ Petition by Tenants in Tenancy Dispute — Section 32F(1) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act Mandates Tenant to Give Intimation Within One Year of Widow Landlady's Death; Failure to Do So Extinguishes Right to Purchase. Landlady's earlier exercise of right under Section 31(1) to resume land for personal cultivation does not dispense with the statutory requirement of notice under Section 32F(1), and non-compliance results in loss of tenancy right and possession reverting to landlord under Section 32P.

Tenancy dispute under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, concerning the right to purchase agricultural land and subsequent proceedings for possession.

The petitioners (tenants) sought quashing of the MRT order and retention of possession; the respondent (landlord) sought possession under Section 32P after alleged extinguishment of tenancy rights.

The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the landlord's revision and set aside the SDO's order, directing the tenants to hand over possession, which the tenants challenged by way of this writ petition.

The Additional Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Wai allowed the landlord's application under Section 32P on 27-08-1998; the Sub Divisional Officer, Wai allowed the tenants' appeal on 09-07-1999; the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal allowed the landlord's revision and set aside the SDO order on 08-02-2017, confirming the ALT decision.

Whether the landlady's exercise of the right under Section 31(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act during her lifetime dispenses with the requirement of the tenant to give intimation under Section 32F(1) upon her death? Whether the tenants' failure to give intimation within the stipulated period under Section 32F(1) automatically extinguishes their right to purchase and renders the land liable to be resumed by the landlord under Section 32P? What is the effect of the regrant of Inam land under the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Office) Act, 1962 on the tenants' already accrued rights under the Bombay Tenancy Act?

The petitioners argued that the landlady had already exercised her right under Section 31(1) during her lifetime by serving a notice requesting the land for personal cultivation, which was rejected; thus the tenant was not required to send any intimation under Section 32F(1) and the benefit of Section 31(3) was not available to her. They relied on Bayaji Sambhu Mali to contend that the notice under Section 32F(1) is not mandatory when the landlady had previously invoked Section 31(1). The petitioners further contended that the right to purchase under Section 32G was already invoked and the question of Section 32F did not arise; also, the regrant under the Patels Act did not take away the vested right of the tenant. The respondent argued that the tenants failed to exercise the right of purchase within the one-year period prescribed under Section 32F(1) after the death of the widow landlady, leading to extinguishment of the right and attracting consequences under Section 32P. He relied on Appa Narsappa Magdum and Tukaram Chavan. The respondent also submitted that failure on the part of the landlord's legal heirs to intimate the death of the landlady does not extend the limitation period statutorily provided, as held in Bakulabai Rama Naikwadi.

Under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, when the landlord is a widow, the tenant's right to purchase under Section 32 is postponed under Section 32F until her death. The tenant must, within one year from the date of death, give intimation and apply for purchase under Section 32G. This requirement is mandatory and is not dispensed with by the landlady's prior exercise of rights under Section 31. Non-compliance results in extinction of the tenancy and the land becomes available for disposal under Section 32P.

The MRT directed the Petitionerstenants to hand over the possession of the suit land to the Respondentlandlord within three months of the said order, failure to which the Respondentlandlord is at liberty to initiate the execution proceeding before the ALT Wai. In the present case, the Petitioners did not exercise the right of purchase the subject land under Section 32F of the said Act within stipulated period from the date of death of landlady, and therefore, the tenants' right to purchase the subject property came to an end.

1. Respondent issued notice to petitioners on 16-01-1997 demanding possession. 2. Petitioners replied on 31-03-1997. 3. Respondent filed application under Section 32P before ALT, Wai. 4. ALT, Wai vide order dated 27-08-1998 allowed the application. 5. Petitioners filed Tenancy Appeal No.15/1998 before SDO, Wai. 6. SDO, Wai vide order dated 09-07-1999 allowed the appeal and set aside ALT order. 7. Respondent filed Revision Application No.77/B/99/NS before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune. 8. MRT vide order dated 08-02-2017 allowed the revision, set aside SDO order, and restored ALT order. 9. Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.5009 of 2017 before Bombay High Court. 10. High Court heard the matter and reserved judgment on 10-04-2019. 11. High Court pronounced judgment on 03-06-2019, dismissing the writ petition and upholding the MRT order.

• Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: 32, 32G, 32F(1), 32P, 32R, 31(1), 31(3), 74, 76, 88(c)
• Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Office) Act, 1962: 8
• Constitution of India: 227