PATEL CHUNIBHAI DAJIBHAI ETC. versus NARAYANRAO KHANDERAO JAMBEKAR AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1965] 2 S.C.R. 328 · Decided: 03-12-1964 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SARKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

328 
PATEL CHUNIBHAI DAJIBHAI ETC. 
v. 
NARA YANRAO KHANDERAO JAMBEKAR AND 
ANOTHER 
December 3, 1964 
(A. K. SARKAR, N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR AND 
R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (67 o/ 1948), as a111~naed 
by Act 38 of 1957, ss. 32 and 76A-Scope of. 
In May 1956, the respondent ga·;e a notice under s. 14 of the llombay 
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, to the appellants, who were 
his tenants, terminating the tenancy on the grounds of non-paymeut of 
rent. In December 1956, he gave another notice to the appellants, under 
a. 31, terminating the tenancy on the ground that be wanted to personally 
cultivate the lands. 
In March 1957, be filed an application before the 
Mamlatdar, on the basis of the notice under s. 31 for recovery of posses· 
aion of the land. 
In July 1957, 
he filed another application for 
the same relief on the basis of the notice under s. 14. On Septembor 28, 
1957, s. 32 of the Act was amended by Act 38 of 1957 as a result of 
which, in certain circumstances, a tenant would be deemed to have pur-
chased, on 1st April 1957, the lands held by him, from the landlord. In 
December 1957, the Mamlatdar allowed the respondent's application based 
on s. 14. In March 1958, he withdrew his application based on s. 31. 
The appellants did not tile an appeal against the order of the Marnlatdar 
of December 1957, but applied to the Collector in August 1958, for 
revision of that order under s. 76A. The Collector called for the records, 
but before the receipt of the records, rejected the application. The appel-
lants again applied and the Collector again rejected the application. The 
orders of rejection were passed in October 1958. 
In November 1958, 
the appellants once again applied to the Collector. In December 1958, 
the Collector received the records. He gave notice to the parties, heard 
them and on 17th February 1959 passed an order setting a<ide the 
Mamlatdar's order of December 1957. The respondent moved the Ro\·enue 
Tribunal but without success. 
He then applied to the High Court under 
Art. 227 of tho Constitution. The High Court held that the Collector had 
power to make the order of 17th February 1959, but that the amended s. 
32 gave no rights to the appellants, as it could not affect the eviction 
application filed in July 1957 and pending when the Amending Act came 
into force, and therefore decided in favour of the respondent-landlord. 
_ In appeal to the Supreme Court by the tenants, the appellants contended 
that the High C<>urt's view as to the applicability of s. 32 was erroneous. 
The respondent, while supporting the High Court's decision on s. 32, 
contended that the High Court's view of s. 76A was wrong and that the 
Collector had no power to review his earlier orders of October 1958 by 
his order of February 1959. 
HELD (Per Ayyangar and llachawat, JJ.) : The provisions in s. 
32(l)(b)(i), (ill and (iii) do not lay down alternative conditions on the 
satisfaction of any one of which, the appellant could be deemed to have 
purchased the land on 1st Aoril 1957. The word "or" between sub-ss. (ii) 
and (iii), in conjunction with the succeeding negatives is equivalent to, 
and should be read as "nor". Therefore, under the section, the appel-
lants, who were not permanent tenants but were cultivating the land 
personally, could become purchasers of the lands on ht April 1957, if 
A 
B 
c 
D 
I 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A. 
B 
c 
CHUNmHAI v. NAllAYANllAO (Sarkar, I.) 
329 
on that date, neither an application based on a. 31, nor an application 
based on 1. 14 waa pending. If an application of either type was pending 
on that date, the tenants could not become purchasers on that date, 
though, if the application were rejected later, they could become pur-
chasers on such postponed date under the proviso to. the section. Since, 
on 31st March 1957, the respondent's application baaed on s. 31 waa 
pending, the appellants could not be deemed to have purchased the land. 
on ~pril 1, 1957. [343 F-0, H; 344 A] 
But the respondent's application based on s. 14 was not maintainable 
as it was filed after 31st March 1957. 
Section 32, as amended, saves 
all application pending on 31st March 1957 and by necessary implication 
it bars all applications filed after that date. The fact that the application 
under s. 31 was pending, and the appellants continued to be tenanta 
would not make any difference. The High Court was therefore jn error 
in quashing the Collector's order 

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