SAKHARAM GANESH PUJARI (D) THR. HIS LRS versus HUSEN ABA BAHADUR (D} BY HIS LRS.& ANR.

Citation: [2017] 11 S.C.R. 229 · Decided: 16-11-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.A. BOBDE, L. NAGESWARA RAO · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2017] II S.C.R. 229 
SAKHARAl\:I GANESH PUJARJ (D) THR. HIS LRS 
A 
v. 
HUSEN ABA BAHADUR (D} BY HIS LRS.& ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 882 of2009) 
NOVEMBER 16. 2017 
[S. A. BOBDE AND L. NAGESWARA RAO, JJ.] 
B 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act. 1948 - s.32P -
Tribunal :v.power to resume and dispose of land not purchased by 
tenant - Held: s.32P confers power on the Tribunal to summarily 
C 
evict the tenant if the right to terminate the tenancy by landlord and 
right to p11rc/1ase by tenant has become ineffective - Jn the instant 
case, landlord failed to exercise his right to terminate the tenancy 
and tenant also failed to give notice for purchase within one year 
of retirement of landlord Ji'om armed forces - Since period within 
which the landlord and tenant could not exercise their rights had D 
expired, a proceeding under s.32P was initiated - The landlord 
having retired in 1959, Chapter lllAA which was introduced in 1964 
had no application to the rights of the parties in this case - By the 
time Chapter Il!AA was introduced in 1964, the appellant's right to 
terminate the tenancy within one year, was not available to him 
because one year had passed ajler the one year made available to 
E 
the landlord - The provisions of Chapter lllA were not made 
retrospective b;1 any express provision or by 11ecessa1:v intendn1ents 
in the amendment - Thus, as the matter stood then, there was only 
power to terminate and hand over possession to the landlord and 
that had been valid/)' exercised by the Appropriate Authority under 
s.32P - High Court, therefore, fell into an error in app(ving VS. 
Charati case and thereupon proceeding to hold that Chapter IJJA is 
applicable in the different facts of the present case - Appropriate 
Authority under the Act is directed to proceed with the action under 
s.32P of the Act. 
Rajakka v. S.M Shinde Spl. C.A. No.2593170 decided 
by Bombay High Court on 3.3.74; V. S. Charati v. 
Hussein Nhanu Jamadar (Dead) by Lrs. f 1998] 3 Suppl. 
SCR 30: (1999) l SCC 273 - referred to. 
229 
F 
G 
H 
230 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2017111 S.C.R 
Case Law Reference 
119981 3 Suppl. SCR 30 
referred to 
Para 14 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 882 of 
2009. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.08.2002 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4794 of 1988. 
Makra11d D. Adkar, Braj K. Mishra, Vijay Kumar, Vishwajit Singh, 
Ad vs. for the Appellant. 
Pravin Satalc (For Raj iv Shankar Dvivcdi), Balraj Dewan, Advs. 
for the Respondents. 
The following Orderofthe Court was delivered: 
ORDf:R 
I. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and 
respondent No. 2. Though, several opportunities granted earlier, none 
has appeared on behalf of respondent nos. I (a) to I(!). 
2. We have perused the appeal and relevant material. 
3. This is a landlord's appeal against the judgment of the Bombay 
High Court' holding that the tenants' right to purchase the land wider 
Section 320 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948 
(hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') is still in existence and the 
proceedings can go on. 
4. The High Cou1t rejected the contention of the landlord that in 
the absence of the exercise of the right to terminate the tenancy by the 
landlord. and the right to purchase the land by the tenant within two 
years from the date of retirement of the landlord from the armed services, 
the rights got extinguished. 
5. The land in question is a little above IO acres and located in 
Kolhapur District. The landlord (now deceased) served in the Armed 
Forces from 13.12.1955 till his retirement on I 0.12.1959. On 01.04.1957, 
the tillers' day, the land was in possession of the respondent (now 
deceased) as tenant. 
1 Datl!d 20.08.2002 
SAKHARAM GANESH PUJARI (D) THR. HIS LRS v. HUSEN 
ABA BAHADUR (D) BY HIS LRS.& ANR. 
6. Because the landlord was serving in the army, the proceedings 
under Section 32P of the Act which empowered the tribunal to resume 
and dispose ofland not purchased by tenant were postponed. 
7. The right of the tenant to purchase the land upon non termination 
of the tenancy by the landlord conferred by Section 32 F of the Act cai:i 
be exercised if notice is given by the tenant within one year from the 
date ofrctirement of the landlord from the Armed Forces. The landlord 
herein failed to exercise his right to terminate the tenancy; however no 
such notice was given upto 09.12. l960 or upto 09.12.1961. Thus, at

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