LexBAYAJI SAMBHU MALI @ BORATE(D) THROUGH LRS. versus NAZIR MOHAMMED BALAL ZARI THROUGH GPA HOLDER & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 3 S.C.R.
BAYAJI SAMBHU MALI @
BORATE(D) THROUGH LRS.
v.
NAZIR MOHAMMED BALAL ZARI
THROUGH GPA HOLDER & ORS.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 1644-1645 of 2019)
FEBRUARY 12, 2019
[ASHOK BHUSHAN AND K. M. JOSEPH, JJ.]
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948:
s. 29 r/w s. 32 and s. 32 F – Whether the tenant is a deemed
purchaser u/s. 29 r/w s. 32 or is covered u/s. 32F – Landlord since
was a minor on tillers day, on attaining majority filed application
u/s. 31(3) for personal cultivation – Application dismissed –
Thereafter, tenant initiated proceedings u/s. 32G – Dismissed by
original authority on the ground of non-compliance of the provisions
u/s. 32F(1A) – Appellate authority reversed the finding of original
authority – Tribunal confirmed the order of original authority –
Writ petition by the tenant was dismissed by High Court – Review
petition against the order was also dismissed – On appeal, held:
On rejection of the application of the landlord u/s. 31, the tenant
attained status of a deemed purchaser – On having acquired such
status, there was no need for compliance of provisions u/s. 32F(1A).
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A perusal of the First Proviso to Section 32(1) of
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 read with
Section 29 would show that when an application is filed by the
landlord for possession and that application is rejected then the
tenant is deemed to have purchased the land. Section 32F, on
the other hand, entitles the tenant to purchase. This is applicable
in a situation where the landlord is a minor and on attaining
majority though he has a period of one year from the date on
which he attains majority to terminate the tenancy and he does
not do so. Then the time starts ticking for the tenant from the
expiry of the period of one year from which the minor landlord
becomes major. [Para 52][986-A-C]
[2019] 3 S.C.R. 968
968
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
969
2. If there is no deemed tenancy within the meaning of
Section 32 proviso read with Section 29 then the only alternative
available for the tenant is to purchase the right by invoking
provision of Section 32F. Both cannot exist together viz. if a
person has a deemed status, there is no need for him to apply for
purchase under Section 32F. Section 29 read with Sections 32
and 32F deal with two mutually exclusive situations. In a case
covered by Section 29 read with Section 32(1) the tenant acquires
the deemed status and in a case where a matter is covered by
Section 32F, there is no deemed status for the tenant but he has
to invoke provision of Section 32F and issue a notice both to
the landlord and to the Tribunal within the meaning of
Section 32F(1A) and the matter has to be decided by the Authority.
[Para 53][986-D, E]
3. In the facts of the present case, if it is established that
provisions contained in Section 32 read with Section 29 are
applicable in so far as if the court accepts the case of the appellant
that the respondent landlord had invoked Section 29 read with
Section 32, being a case of a minor who became entitled to apply
within a period of one year from the date of attaining majority and
the application culminated in the rejection of his case, then the
appellant would acquire deemed status. If he acquires deemed
status, then there could be no need to invoke Section 32F. Rather
there is no need for him to again acquire a status which is conferred
upon him by law by a deeming provision. Nothing more is required
to be done by the tenant in such a case. [Para 54][986-F, G]
4. The appellant has produced material, the orders passed
by the Appellate Authority and also by the Tribunal in Revision.
It does show by invoking Sections 29 and 32, the first respondent
had applied by projecting the case that he was born in 1948. The
application filed by him stood rejected on the basis that the
application was barred as birth register showed that he was born
in 1947. Though the appellant has not produced certified copies
earlier and has produced the same in the High Court along with
the review petition, after the judgment was delivered in the writ
petition. [Para 55][986-H; 987-A-B]
5. Thus, the appellant admittedly was a tenant of the first
respondent. It is a case where there was no need for the appellant
BAYAJI SAMBHU MALI @ BORATE(D) v. NAZIR MOHD.
BALAL ZARI THR.GPA HOLDER
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
970 SUPREME COURT REPORExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.