V.S. CHARATI versus HUSSEIN NHANU JAMADAR (DEAD) BY L.RS.

Citation: [1998] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 30 · Decided: 18-11-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
V.S. CHARATI 
v. 
HUSSEIN NHANU JAMADAR (DEAD) BY L.RS. 
NOVEMBER 18, 1998 
B 
[MRS. SUJATA V. MANOHARAND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 : Sections 31(1), 
32-F(IA), 43-IA, 43-IB and 43-IE-Scope of-Chapter III-A (As inserted by 
C Maharashtra Act 39 of 1964)-Ejfect of 
Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings 
Act, 1947 : 
Landlord, a member of Armed Forces-Right to terminate tenancy-
Appellant--landlord, a minor, filed application under section 31(1) read 
D with Section 29 for possession of personal cultivation-Dismissal of 
application-Consequently respondent became a deemed purchaser-
Proceedings initiated by tenant for determination of purchase price dropped 
by Tribunal-Ground that as appellant landlord was minor tenant could not 
purchase the land-Tribunal's decision not challenged by tenant-In the 
E meantime Chapter Ill-A inserted in 1947 Act-Section 43-IB conferred benefits 
on members and ex-members of armed forces to terminate tenancy-Appellant, 
who on attaining majority joined armed forces served notice terminating 
tenancy----Landlord 's application allowed by S. D. 0. and upheld by Additional 
Commissioner-Writ preferred by tenant allowed by High Court-Appeal 
preferred by landlord-Held section 43-IB overrides the preceding provisions 
F of the Act~Jf the rights of the tenant as a purchaser have not been crystalised, 
the landlord belonging to the armed forces can claim benefits of the provisions 
of Chapter Ill-AA-In the present case, as Section 32-G proceedings were 
dropped, the rights of the respondent-tenant as a purchaser have not been 
crystalised-The very purpose of introducing Chapter III-A by the Amending 
Act of 1964 is to give additional benefits to those landlords who are members 
G of the armed forces-The appellant did not lose his rights under Chapter IIJ-
AA because the proceedings under Section 32-G had been dropped, and the 
tenant remained only a deemed purchaser and could not be called a 
purchaser as contemplated under Section 43-IE-The High Court was not 
right in coming to the conclusion that the application was barred under 
H Section 43-1£. 
30 
V.S. CHARA TI v. HUSSEIN NHANU JAMADAR 
31 
Judgment-Not challenged by parties-Becomes final and binding on A 
the parties-A decision, simply because it may be wrong, would not thereupon 
become a nullity-It would continue to bind the parties unless set aside-
1 n this case order refusing deterl'l}ination of purchase price was not 
challenged-Therefore its effect cannot be ignored 
Bhimrao Tatoba Sawant and Anr. v. Heramb Anant Patwardhan & B 
Ors., AIR (1986) Bombay 408, approved. 
Nago Dattu Mahajan v. Smt. Yeshodabai Huna Mahajan, (1976) 78 
BLR 427, cited. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1874 of 1984. C 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.10.90 of the Bombay High Court 
in S.C.A. No. 4762of1976. 
S.V. Deshpande,_Pramit Saxena and Suhas for the Appellant. 
P.R. Ramasesh and Ms. Promila Chaudhary for the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
The appellant is the landlord. He has claimed that in a partition effected 
D 
in the year 1956 in the joint .family of which he was a member, an area E 
admeasuring 1 acre 19 gunthas out of Revision Survey No. 8 of village 
Kudnoor in Gadhinglaj Taluka came to his share. This land is agricultural land 
of which the original respondent was a tenant at the material time. 
On coming into force of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 
1948, the appellant filed an application under Section 31 (I) read with Section F 
29 of the said Act for possession on the ground that he bona fide required 
the land for personal cultivation. Although the appellant was a minor at the 
time of the application, he chose to exercise his rights under Section 31(1). 
This application was ultimately dismissed by the Mamlatdar on 29.5.1957 on 
the ground that under Section 31-B, there is a prohibition against termination G 
of tenancy if such termination would result in contravention of the provisions 
of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation & Consolidation of Holdings Act, 
1947. Therefore, by virtue of the dismissal of the appellant's application under 
Section 31 (I) under the provisions of Section 32(1) the respondent became 
a deemed purchaser of the said land on the postponed date 29.5.1957, the 
latter being the date on which the application of the appellant was dismissed. H 
32 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1

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