Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the tenant, Bayaji Sambhu Mali @ Borate (through LRs), against the judgment of the High Court which had dismissed his writ petition and review petition. The dispute arose under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, concerning agricultural land in Maharashtra. The appellant was the tenant, and the first respondent was the landlord. On the tillers' day, i.e., 1 April 1957, the landlord was a minor. The landlord claimed he attained majority on 10 September 1966 and filed an application under Section 31(3) of the Act for personal cultivation, which was dismissed by the Mamlatdar on 27 July 1967. The landlord's appeal and revision were also dismissed, with the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissing the revision on 22 April 1970. Thereafter, the tenant initiated proceedings under Section 32G of the Act in 1977, claiming deemed purchase. However, the original authority held that the tenant had not complied with Section 32F of the Act, which requires a notice from the tenant. This was confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 30 September 1978. The Tribunal, on revision, remanded the matter. On remand, the Additional Tehsildar on 20 July 1990 found that the tenant failed to prove that the landlord had exercised his right to recover possession under Section 31, and thus Section 32F applied, making the purchase ineffective. The Appellate Authority reversed this on 24 April 1992, but the Tribunal on 9 January 1997 restored the Tehsildar's order. The High Court dismissed the tenant's writ petition and review. The Supreme Court framed the issue: whether the tenant is a deemed purchaser under Section 29 read with Section 32, or whether the case falls under Section 32F requiring notice. The Court examined the statutory scheme, particularly Sections 29, 31, 32, and 32F. It noted that the landlord's application under Section 31 had been rejected and upheld up to the Tribunal. The Court held that under the proviso to Section 32(1), if the landlord's application for possession under Section 29 has been rejected, the tenant is deemed to have purchased the land. In such a case, there is no requirement for the tenant to give notice under Section 32F(1A). The Court found that the authorities below had erred in ignoring the legal effect of the rejection orders. The Court set aside the impugned orders and declared that the appellant-tenant is a deemed purchaser under Section 32 read with Section 29 of the Act. The appeals were allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Deemed Purchase - Section 32 read with Section 29 - Landlord's Application for Possession Rejected - Where a landlord's application for possession under Section 31 has been rejected by the Mamlatdar or by higher authorities, the tenant is deemed to have purchased the land on the tillers' day under Section 32(1) proviso. In such a case, there is no requirement for the tenant to give notice under Section 32F(1A). The rejection of the landlord's application, upheld up to the Tribunal, triggers the deemed purchase provision. (Paras 16-20) B) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Section 32F - Notice Requirement - Applicability - Section 32F applies only where the landlord has not exercised his right to recover possession under Section 31 or where the tenant fails to prove that the landlord exercised such right. Once the landlord's application under Section 31 is rejected, the tenant's purchase becomes effective without the need for notice under Section 32F(1A). (Paras 18-20) C) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Section 29 - Procedure for Taking Possession - Landlord's Application - The rejection of the landlord's application under Section 29 for possession, even if based on procedural grounds, has the legal effect of confirming the tenant's deemed purchase under Section 32. The certified copies of orders showing rejection are relevant and must be considered. (Paras 12-13, 20)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-tenant is a deemed purchaser under Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, or whether the case falls under Section 32F of the Act requiring the tenant to give notice under Section 32F(1A).
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned orders of the High Court, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, and the Additional Tehsildar, and declared that the appellant-tenant is a deemed purchaser under Section 32 read with Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Deemed purchase under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act
- 1948
- Landlord's application for possession under Section 31 rejected
- No requirement of notice under Section 32F(1A) when landlord's application is rejected
- Effect of proviso to Section 32(1)
