LexTUKURAM MARUTI CHAVAN versus MARUTI NARAYAN CHAVAN (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 508 A MARUTI NARAYAN CHAVAN (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6158 of 2002) SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.) B ' Land Laws: -'., Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1984 - ss. 32 F and 31 (3) -Tenant's right to purchase land when land- c lady is widow - Issuance of notice uls. 32F - Requirement of - Held: Is mandatory - However, when widow land lady exer- cises her right uls 31 (1) during her life time that she requires land bonafide, notice uls 32F is not mandatory and benefit of s. 31 (3) is not available - On facts, widow landlady did not avails. 31(1), as such, s. 31(3) was applicable - However, D tenant did not serve notice to landlady, hence, tenant lost his right to claim the disputed land - Order of High Court that tenant was under legal obligation to serve notice of his inten- tion to purchase land to landlady and initiation of proceed-· ings by tenant u/s 32 G was not substantial compliance of the' E requirement uls 32F justified - Thus, order of High Court up·· held. Widow NB was the original owner of the agricultural land. Appellant was in cultivation of the land. M-original F tenant, initiated proceedings u/s. 32 G of the Bombay Ten- ancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1984. The tahsildar ·'r passed order in favour of the tenant and fixed the pur- chase price of land. The appellant purchased the land. In 1964 NB died leaving behind Land R. L filed appeal. The order of the tahsildar was upheld. Thereafter, R challenged G the order. Tahsildar held that respondent No. 2 was the sole owner of the land; and that the purchase of the lanid by the appellant was ineffective for want of notice uls 32F. The tribunal upheld the order. Aggrieved, appellant filE!d ¥ writ petition. During pendency of the writ petition, the H 508 TUKARAM MARUTI CHAVAN v. MARUTI NARAYAN 509 -I CHAVAN (DEAD) BY L.RS. & ORS. original tenant M died, respondent no. 2 executed sale A deed of the land and did not inform the court. High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that respondent no. 2 was the sole owner of the disputed land in pursu- ance of the letters of administration obtained by him from ,,.> the Civil Court. It held that though the tenant had initiated B proceedings under section 32 G and had paid some instalments towards the price of the land, the same could not be considered as substantial compliance resulting in dispensation of the mandatory requirement of section 32 F, thus, respondent no. 2 lost his right to purchase the c disputed land. Hence the present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1 The interpretation given by the High Court t in the impugned judgment of the ss. 31 (3) and 32 F of the D ' Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1984 can- ,_.... not be faulted with. The High Court correctly noticed that sub-section (3) of section 31 provides that the landlord under disability and intending to exercise a right under this chapter shall give a notice terminating the tenancy E and if the landlord is a widow then the notiGe can be given by the successor-in-title of the widow within one year from the date on which her interest in the land ceases to exist. In the instant case, when the widow NB died, she ceased to have interest in the land and therefore the right of R as """" her successor-in-interest, to give notice under section 31 F to the tenant gets extended for one year from the death of NB. [Para 9] [517 B-D] 1.2 The High Court correctly pointed out that the pro- visions of Section 32 F are independent in nature and are G separate from the provisions under Section 31 of the Act. The exception under Section 32 F (1) to subsection (2) is "'+ limited to the sections referred to in it, i.e., from Section 32 to 32 E and 32 G to 32 R. Further the expression "Not- withstanding anything contained in the preceding sec- H 510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. -....... A tions" under sub-section (1) of Section 32 F are of para- mount importance. Considering the fact that Section 31 is not included in the sections mentioned under sub-sec- tion (2) of Section 32 F, and the expression "Notwithstand- ing anything contained in the preceding sections" under B sub-section (1) of Section 32 F, the right given to the land- ...... lord under section 31 has nothing to do with the right given to the tenant under Section 32 F for purchasing the land and consequently i
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.