LexANNA BHAU MAGDUM, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES versus BABASAHEB ANANDRA DESAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
ANNA BHAU MAGDUM, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL A REPRESENTATIVES v BABASAHEB ANANDRA DESAI JULY 20, 1995 [S.C. AGRAWAL ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 1948 : Sections 32-F, 32-G-Landlord a minor-Tenant's right to purchase the land-Procedure to be f ollowed--Case governed by S.32-F-Not following the prescribed procedure-Effect of-Held: S.35-F Mandatory in natur~Tenant having failed to exercise right of purchase conferred on him, liable to summary eviction. '6' was the owner of certain agricultural land, which he leased out to 'A' the predecessor in title to the appellants. By a gift deed dated September 4, 1953, B gifted the said land to the respondent respondent B c D who was a minor at that time. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was amended in 1956 to confer special rights and privileges on tenants. The amended Section 32 declared that on 1st April, E 1957 described as tillers day, every tenant satisfying the requirements of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have purchased from his landlord the land held by him as tenant free from all encumbran- ces subsisting thereon on the said land held by him as a tenant. Section 32-F contains special provisions in cases where the landlord was a minor, F or a person subject to any mental or physical disability on 1st April, 1957. The respondent attained majority on January 17, 1965. Proceedings under Section 35-G were started in respect of the said land in 1960, but were dropped in 1966, on the ground that the landlord was a minor. Fresh proceedings were .started in 1975 and the Tribunal held that the tenant had list his right to purchase the suit land and declared that the purchase of G the land had become ineffective under s.32- G(3) of the Act. The said order was set aside in appeal and the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for holding a fresh inquiry. The Tribunal held that in view of section 32-F(lA), the tenant could exercise his right of purchase by sending an intimation upto January 17, 1967 and since the tenant had failed to send such an H 259 260 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. A intimation his right of purchase stood forfeited. It was also held that by the amendment incorporated in Section 32-F(lA) by the 1969 Amendment a further opportunity was given ·to the tenant to exercise his right to purchase by sending the intimation upto October 17, 1971 and that even during this period of extension the tenant did not avail of the opportunity B c and in the circumstances the right of purchase of the tenant became automatically ineffective and he had become liable for summary eviction under section 32-P(l). The appeal filed by the teµant against the said order was dismissed by the Sub-divisional Officer. The revision application filed by the tenant against the judgment of the Sub-divisional Officer was dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The writ petition filed by the tenant has been dismissed by the High Court. Hence this appeal. .. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD 1. In the instant case the landlord was a minor on April 1, D 1957, the tillers' day, and the right of the tenant to purchase the land is governed by provisions of section 32-F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricul- tural Lands Act, 1948. In clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 32-F it was prescribed that where the landlord is a minor or a widow or a person subject to any mental or physical disability the right of the tenant to purchase such land under section 32 would be available within one year E from the expiry of the period during which the landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy under section 31. The said period as prescribed in sub-section (3) of section 31 was one year from the date on whieh the minor attains majority or the interest of the widow in the land ceases to exist or the mental or physical disability of the person cease to exist. Under Clause p (lA) the tenant who was desirous to exercise his right conferred on him under sub-section (1) was required to give an intimation in that behalf to the landlord as well as to the Agricultural Lands Tribunal in the prescribed manner within the period specified in that sub-section, namely, within one year after the expiry of the period during which the landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy under section 3J.. The tenant was, G therefore, required to give notice b
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.