LexJAYKUMAR GANPATI WAIKAR versus NIVRITTI SAKHARAM TITWE AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B JAYKUMAR GANPATI WAIKAR v. NIVRITTI SAKHARAM TITWE AND ORS. SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: Sections 31(3), 32 & 32F-Proceedings for ejectment of tenant:-lnitiated by appellant's mother on the ground that she was entitled to resume the land-Pending C proceedings she died, and her son the appellant who was a min01; was brought on record-Proceedings ending in dismissal of the suit-Appellant attained majority and the tenant issued notice opting to purchase the land-Tenant filing Wlit petition in High Court-High court held that the tenant entitled to purchase the land since as on April 1, 1957, the tillers' day, lte was in pos- session but could not opt to purchase the property due to the disability of the D widow which stood in his way-On appeal, held : It was the mandatory duty of the minor landlord, after attaining maj01ity, to issue notice to the tenant calling upon him, whether he would exercise his option to purchase, as en- visaged under Section 32F of the Act-Admittedly, he did not issue any such notice-On the other hand, the tenant himself, on becoming aware of the E appellant's becoming major, issued the notice exercising the option to purchase the property under Section 32F of the Act-There is no illegality in the ultimate conclusion reached by the High Cowt though this consideration was not ad- verted to by the High Court. Harshavardhan Shrinivas Potnis v. Mahadu Pundalik Gangurde, AIR F (1980) Born. 198, distinguished. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 688 of 1980. From the Judgment and Order dated 23.11.78 of the Bombay High G Court in Spl. C.A. No. 2589 of 1974. H Krishna Mahajan, P.H. Parekh for the Appellant. V.N. Ganpule and V.B. Joshi for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : 434 -•· . --. .. J.G. WAIKAR v. N.S. TITWE 435 This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated Novem- A ber 23, 1978 of the High Court of Bombay in Special Civil Application No. 2589/74 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution. B The admitted facts are that the appellant was a minor when his adoptive mother Guru Santabai Ganpati Waykar had initiated that proceedings under Section 31(3) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (for short the "Act") for ejectment of the respondent- tenant on the ground that she was entitled to resume the land. Pending proceedings, she died and thereafter the appellant had come on record. Admittedly, as on the date of the death of his mother the appellant was a minor. The proceedings under Section 31(3) ultimately ended in dismissal C of the suit on March 13, 1972. In the meanwhile, the appellant had attained majority on March 19, 1968. Resultantly, the tenant got issued notice on April 21, 1968 under Section 32F of the Act opting to purchase the land under Section 32. The application, appeal and the revision arising under the Act came to be dismissed. Thus the tenant-respondent filed writ D petition in the High Court. The writ petition was allowed and it was held that the respondent was entitled to purchase the lands since as on April, 1, 1957, the tillers' day, he was in possession but he could not opt to purchase the property due to the disability of the widow, which stood in his way under Section 32F of the Act. Thus this appeal by special leave. The question is : whether the respondent had exercised that right under Section 32F of the Act within one year? Section 32F of the Act envisages as under : E "32F. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding F sections - (a) where the landlord is a minor, or a widow, or a person subject to any mental or physical disability the tenant shall have the right to purchase such land under Section 32 within one year from the expiry of the period during which such landlord is entitled to G terminate the tenancy under Section 31 and for enabling the tenant to exercise the right of purchase, the landlord shall send an intimation to the tenant of the fact that he has attained majority, before the expiry of the period during which such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under Section 31." H A B 436 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. It is seen that the widow had already exercised the option to ter- minate the tenancy of the tenant and the proceedings were pending in the appropriate forum during the course of
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.