SAVALIRAM GOTIRAM TELI (DECEASED) BY HEIRS AND LRS. versus MADHUKAR YESHWANT PATANKAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 747 · Decided: 19-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

SAVALIRAM GOTIRAM TELi (DECEASED) 
BY HEIRS AND LRS. 
v. 
MADHUKAR YESHWANT PATANKAR AND OTHERS 
NOVEMBER 19, 1996 
(N.P. SINGH AND ~.B. MAJMUDAR, JJ.] 
Land Laws and Agricultural Tenancy : 
A 
B 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948-Sections 32 
(J-B), 40, 29-Whether heirs of a tenant can claim restoration of possession C 
under the provisions of section 32 (1-B)-Tenant was in possession on the 
appointed day, i.e., 15.6.1955-Dispossessed without following procedure 
under section 29 before the tiler's day i.e., 1.4.1957-Landlords remained 
in possession upto 31. 7.1969-Held: Conditions of 32 (IB) satisfied-Suo 
motu proceedings by the Mam/atdar or proceedings by the heirs themselves- D 
Valid and maintainable-Irrespective of the fact that the original tenant 
died before initiating proceedings for restoration of possession within two 
years of dispossession under section 29, Section 40 transmits tenancy rights 
in favour of the heirs. 
· 
The predecessor-in-interest of the appellants was the tenant of E 
the agricultural land of the respondent-landlords on the appointed 
day i.e. 15th June, 1955. The tenant was dispossessed by the landlords 
· prior to lst April, 1957 otherwise-than by an appropriate order UIJder 
section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 194.8. 
After dispossessing the tenant, the respondent landlords remained in 
possession of the land till 31st July,~- The Mamlatdar initiated F 
suomotu proceedings under section 32(1-B) of the Act on the ground 
that the tenant was in possession of the land on the appointed day 
and was dispossessed prior to tiller's day i.e. 1st April, 1957 without 
following the due procedure of law, and therefore, the landlords were 
liable to restore the possession to the heirs of the tenant as he had G 
died in the meantime in 1959. The Additional Mamlatdar, the Deputy 
Collector and the Revenue Tribunal held in favour of the heirs of the 
tenant and ordered restoration of possession of the land from the 
respondent landlords. The respondents filed a Writ Petition in the 
High Court. The High Court allowed the Writ Petition and held that 
the proceedings were. not maintainable and the tenancy right could H 
747 
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [ 1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 
A not be inherited by the heirs as the tenant only could have initiated 
such proceedings. The appellants filed the present appeal against the 
judgment of the High Court. In the meantime the judgment of the 
single judge was overruled by a Division Bench of the High Court. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: I. I. The heirs ofa tenant can claim restoration of possession 
under section 32(1-B) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands 
Act irrespective of the fact that the original tenant died before he could 
initiate proceedings for restoration of possession within two years of 
dispossession under section 29. Section 32(1-B) of the Act itselfoperates 
C on its own and includes within it the non-obstinate clause meaning 
thereby overriding the provisions of section 29 of the Act. This clearly 
means that whether the erstwhile tenant had followed the provisions 
of section 29 or not for getting restoration of possession of the land 
from the landlord within two years was irrelevant as a further locus 
penintentiae is given to such tenants by the express language of section 
D 32(1-B) of the Act and dehors section 29, Section 40 of the Act then 
squarely gets attracted. (753-E-H, 754-A] 
1.2. Section 40 of the Act provides for a deemed fi~tion about 
transmission of existing tenancy rights in favour of the heirs. Thus on 
the death of the tenant in J 959, as his tenancy rights had not got 
E extinguished by an appropriate proceedings under section 29 at the , 
instance of the landlord, those tenancy rights survived and could be 
transmitted under the statutory provisions of section 40 in favour of 
the heirs of the erstwhile tenant who were obviously willing to continue 
as tenants. The result was that when section 32(18) operated, they 
F fully satisfied the requirement of being statutory tenants of the land 
in question having the same terms and conditions of tenancy qua the 
respondent-landlords and hence could claim their right of restoration 
of possession of the tenanted lands against the respondent-landlords 
on satisfaction of the required conditions of section 32(1 B) of the Act. 
G 
. (754-D-GJ 
1.3. Applicability of Section 32(18) can not also be questioned 
on the 

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