LexBABU VITHU GAIKWAD (DEAD) BV. LRS. versus CHINTAMAN SADASHIV AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
"" ~ BABU VITHU GAIKWAD (DEAD) BV. LRS. A v. CHINTAMAN SADASHIV AND ORS. MAY 16, 2007 [A.K. MATHUR AND TAR UN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] B Rent Control and Eviction: ,.;-'... Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948; Ss. 29, 31, 32 and 33: Issuance of notice for termination of tenancy-Landlord failing to initiate c proceedings against tenant under s. 29 of 1948 Act-Tenant filing an application under s. 32F and 320 of the Act for purchasing the tenanted premises-Rejected by the Authority-Appeal allowed by the Appellate Authority remitting the matter back to the Authority for disposal afresh- Authority directing the tenant to initiate proceeding in terms of s. 32P of the D Act as his right to purchase the property in question forfeited in terms of provisions u/s. 32F of the Act-On appeal, Appellate Authority remitting r back the matter to the authority for fixation of the price of the property in .> accordance with the Law-Filing of Review Petition by Landlord before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal-Allowed by the Tribunal-Challenge to- Dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held: s. 320 rlw s. 33 of the Act deal E with the right of the Landlord to terminate the tenancy on the ground of personal use-On the contrary s. 32F deals with the right of the tenant to purchase the land in case the Landlord is a minor-They contradicts each other as in case Landlord exercise his right, the tenant cannot and vice- versa-Besides, an error on the part of the Landlord does not mean that the F .--(· tenant's right under s. 32F could be evoked automatically-Tribunal was right in observing that the Appellate Authority holding the tenant to be deemed purchaser without complying with the requirements of farnishings the requisite intimation in terms of s. 32F of the Act-Tribunal is duty bound to give opportunity to the Landlord/any of the party to be heard before deciding the value of the Land-Since intimation as furnished by the tenant G was inconsistent with law, Appellate Authority erred in holding the tenant as deemed purchaser--:-Hence, the order of the Tribunal as affirmed by the ·-. High Court upheld. 1067 H 1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 6 S.C.R. A Appellants are heirs and legal representatives of the original tenant in respect of an agricultural land, which was owned by the father of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 issued notice to the tenant for termination of his tenancy in respect of the said land. However, he had failed to initiate proceedings under Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands B Act. Later, the tenant had filed an application under Section 32F read with Section 32G of the Act for purchasing the tenanted premises/disputed land. The Authority rejected the application of the tenant The tenant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the Authority for disposal afresh. The Authority held that under Section 32F of the Act, right of the tenant to purchase the land was forfeited. C Aggrieved, the tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which was allowed by it by remanding the matter back to the Authority for holding an enquiry under Section 32G to 32R of the Act for fixing the price of the land in question in accordance with law. Aggrieved, the landlord-respondent No.I filed a Revision Petition before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which was allowed by the Tribunal, against which the tenants had filed a writ petition D in the High Court, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence, the present appeals. Appellants-legal representatives of the tenant contended that the tenant had shown his willingness to purchase the land in the proceedings before the E trial authority under Section 32G of the Act; and that the Tribunal as well the Authority have misconstrued the provisions of Section 32 and 32F of the Act and therefore the order passed by the High Court and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal deserve to be set aside. F Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Section 29 and Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, if read together, deal with the process involved in a situation where the landlord wants to take possession of his land from the tenant and his right to terminate the tenancy for personal use. S. 32F on the contrary speaks about the right of the tenant to purchase the land in case the G landlord is a minor. Both the pa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.