LexPATEL SURESHBHAI JASHBHAI versus PATEL SATABHAI MATHURBHAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 992 .PATEL SURESHBHAI JASHBHAI v. PATEL SATABHAI MATHURBHAI April 28, 1983 [D. A, DESAI AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948-ss. 32, 32 G, 32 PP- Scope of-Tenant-Deemed Purchaser of land-Failed to be present-Sale declared ineffective-Application under section 32 PP for determiniJtion of price-Landlord entitled to contend applicant not a tenant-Not precluded by .res-judicata. lly the operation of s. 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 the respondent who was recorded as a tenant on the tillers' day i.e. !st April, 1957 was deemed to have purchased the land from the appe"Uant-landlord subject to other provisions of the Act. The respondent having refused to accept notice u/s 32G for determining the price of the land and failing to appear, the Tribunal declared the sale ineffective. Subsequently the respondent made an application under s. 32 PP that afforded a fresh opportunity to a tenant who had failed to aµpear before the Tribunal as a result of which the sale was held ine~ectivc, requesting tli.e Tribunal t~ deter~ mine purchase price of the land. The Tribunal held that the responc:ent was not a. tenant of the land and was not entitled to be declared a deemed pur .. chaser and accordingly it is not necessary to determine the price. The Deputy Collector dismissed the appeal preferred by the respondent. The Revenue Tribunal in a revision petition held that once the notice was issued to a person who is shown to have purchased the land ufs 32 and if the sale is held ineffec .. tive because of his absence in the proceeding• under s. 32G, in a subsequent proceeding u/s 32 PP it is not open to the lannlord to challenge that such a person was not tenant. A petition under Article 227 of the Con-stitution moved by the appellant-landlord was dismissed in li"dne by the High Court, Dismissing the appeal, HELD : The yiew of the Revenue Tribunal is not correct. Section 32 PP confers a right upon a person claiming to be a tenant to make an appli· cation for determining the price and the pre-condition is that he failed to appear before the Tribunal in a prcceeding u/s 320. In such a situation,. the landlord is a necessary party. The landlord cs.n and would be entitled to contend that the person claiming to be a tenant and making an appli~ation u/s 32 pp was not a tenant on April I, 1957. Undoubtedly only that person is entitled to make an application u/s 32 PP who having failed to appear before the Tribunal in a proceeding ufs 320, the statutory sale was declared ineffective but on that account such person making an application under s. 32 PP must be accepted as tenant without further enquiry and without permitting \he landlord to challenge the status of the applicant is not warranted b¥ the y I l'.S. JASHBHAI '· P.s. MATHUJl.BHA!.(Desai, J.) . 993 language of s: 32 Pf., The Revenue: Trjbuna)'s view. that·. UI)less the. landlord, . 1-... challenged the order u/s 320 declaring lhe sale having, become inetrectjve Oil _ .the footing that a persoil to whom notiCe was sent was'. a tenant on Aprjl t. - 1957 and bis failure lo appear without anything more would clothe him with the status of a tenant overlooks the possibility or a pCrson tO whom noticq is served not appearing because be bad nothing to do with 1he Ian<!. · · , . . (996 H, 997 A-HJ ' , ._,>---. The failure of t4e landlo~d 'to question the sale bein$ <le~lared ineffective: ·on acc:Ount of the absence of thet person to· ·whom notice was sent and who defaulted would not either on the general Principle of resjudicata or principle. analogous to constructive res judicata. preclude the landlord from chaUengiqg ·the. sta~ ifl the subsequrnt enquiry. The1e is only ope situatipn whicfl may . preclude the enquiry in that if on receipt of notice; the tenant di4 µot appear . ' and the landlord appeared and unequivocally admitted that. the defaulting · p.erson was a tenant on ·the relevant date 'and on· his failure to appeiir the ··sale should be declared ineffective; the landlord ill. sUbsequent , prOceedlng · . under s, 32 PP would be estopped from challenging the status of the applicant : tenant, (998 A-q . • ·· CML APPELLATE Ju&1so1cnoN : Civil Appeal . No. 1583 of 1970. , ' .. , ' ' ' -..,;' Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Ordet dated the 22-12-1969 of the Gujarat High Court in S.C.A. No. 1630 of 1969. . - V. A
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.