JANBA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus SMT. GOPIKABAI

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1035 · Decided: 06-04-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

JANBA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. 
A 
v. 
SMT. GOPIKABAI 
APRIL 6, 2000 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] 
B 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958-
Sections 50( I), 41 (2 )-Applicability of-Jn case of purchase under Section 
SO-Sections 41 to 44 to apply mutatis mutandis to 'such purchase' which the 
tenant is entitled to make under section 41-Sub-section (2) of Section 41 
C 
cannot be made applicable in case of purchase under Section Section 50, as 
it does not perlain to the purchase but it is with regard to the postponement 
of 'such purchase' -Sections 41 to 44. 
Section 50( 1 )-Interpretation of-Consistently given one meaning by 
High Courls-Held, would not be proper to interpret the provision differently 
D 
after about three decades. 
Interpretation of Statutes-Local Statutes-Interpretation of-Vi.ew taken 
by the High Courl over a number of years should nonnally be adhered to and 
not disturbed. 
Widow (respondent) of one 'L', applied to Tehsildar for declaration 
that the appellant was in illegal possession of the land in dispute, as he was 
not the tenant of the same and, they alternatively asked for possession of 
the land under Section 50 of Tenancy Act, as the tenant had not exercised 
the right of purchase within one year from the commencement of the said 
provision. Appellant contended that as the respondents being widows his 
right to purchase the land was postponed under Section 41(2) of the Act 
till their disability ceased, then the matter reached the High Court, the 
same was remanded back to Tehsildar. Tehsildar rejected the application 
of the Respondents, on the ground that the Appellant was not entitled to 
purchase the land till after the expiry of two years from the cessation of 
the interest of the widow. 
The Appellate Authority, allowed the appeal of the respondents and 
directed them to seek appropriate remedy for restoration of possession, 
bl)\ding lhat the appellant had never been a tenant. 
1035 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1036 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2000) 2 S.C.R 
A 
Appellants filed revision before Tribunal, which was allowed restor-
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
ing the order of Tehsildar holding that the respondents being widows, the 
question of extension of time and deemed surrender did not arise at all. 
Appeal was preferred before High Court. Single Judge held that the 
claim for declaration that the appellant was not a tenant was barred by 
limitation, and that the tenancy was created after 1.4.1963 and that in the 
facts of the case, Section 50 would be applicable. On the question whether 
section 41(2) of the Act applied to such tenancies, he referred the matter to 
the Division Bench, which held that Section 50 is a complete Code in itself 
and that the provisions of Section 41(2) would.not be applicable to such 
tenancies. The right to purchase having not been exercised by the appel-
lant within one year from the date of tenancy, the respondent was entitled 
to delivery of possession. Appeal was preferred by the appellants to this 
Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1.1. Section 50 specifically provides that every tenant hold-
ing land under such tenancy i.e. tenancy created or restored after 1.4.1963, 
and cultivating it personally shall be entitled to purchase within one year 
from the commencement or as the case may be, the restoration of the 
tenancy so much of such land as he may be entitled to purchase under 
Section 41. That period of one year cannot be changed by holding that 
sub-section (2) would be applicable and 'such purchase' is not be post-
poned for an indefinite period i.e. after two years from the date of cessa-
tion of disability of the landlord. If this contention is accepted, 'such 
purchase' would be postponed for a period of two years after happening 
of uncertain eventuaUty, namely, minor landlord becoming major, widow 
ceasing to be owner or in case of disabled person, till cessation of mental 
or physical disability. That is neither the intention of the legislature nor it 
is provided. What is provided for is - to "such purchase" Sections 41 to 44 
mutatis mutandis shall apply. [1049-B-D] 
G 
1.2. The scheme of Section 50 is different from Section 41. Section 41 
talks of purchase of the land by a tenant and carves out an exception as 
provided in sub-section (2) in favour of landlord of specified categories 
(minor, widow or person subject to physical disability). As against this, 
....
under Section 50 no such exception is carved ou

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.