- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Sudam Ganpat Kutwal,... v. Shevantabai Tukaram ...
Factual and Procedural Background
Shankar Sitaram Bhosle (represented in the litigation by his power-of-attorney-holder Sudam Ganpat Kutwal) was inducted in 1954 as a tenant of agricultural land measuring 25 acres 9 guntas (Gata No. 332, Village Jogwadi, Taluka Baramati, District Pune).
On 1 April 1957 (“tillers’ day”) the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 conferred a deemed purchase right on tenants. Because the landlord, Anusuyabai Bhosle, was a widow, the tenant’s deemed purchase was statutorily postponed.
• 1958: Anusuyabai invoked Sections 31 and 29, seeking possession for personal cultivation. By order dated 30-6-1960 the competent authority directed the tenant to hand over one-half of the land to her; the tenant complied.
• 1964–65: Her further attempt to recover the remaining half was rejected.
• 1975: Anusuyabai died. Her sister, Shevantabai, was recorded as successor.
• 1994: Shevantabai filed Application No. 72/1994 under Sections 32-P and 32-F, alleging the tenant had not served the mandatory “intimation of purchase” notice under Section 32-F(1-A). The Agricultural Land Tribunal ordered the tenant’s eviction.
• 1995–96: On appeal the Sub-Divisional Officer partly set aside that eviction and remitted issues for fresh inquiry; both sides filed revisions.
• 1999: The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal restored the eviction direction, holding the tenant’s purchase right had lapsed for want of notice. The Bombay High Court (WP No. 2599/1999) affirmed that view on 9-7-1999.
• Present appeal: The tenant obtained special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, after the widow landlord had already exercised her right under Section 31(1) and obtained possession of half the land, the tenant was still obliged to serve an “intimation of purchase” notice under Section 32-F(1-A) to her successor-in-title in respect of the remaining half.
- If such notice was unnecessary, whether the tenant’s right to continue in possession and eventually purchase the remaining land survived notwithstanding the contrary findings of the tribunals and the High Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant (Tenant)
- The High Court erred in concluding that records did not prove delivery of half the land to the widow landlord in 1960; the 1960 order and related documents clearly establish that fact.
- Once the widow had exercised her Section 31 right and obtained half the land, Sections 31(3) and 32-F ceased to apply by virtue of Sections 31-B, 31-C and 31-D; hence no notice under Section 32-F(1-A) was ever required.
- The impugned orders therefore wrongly forfeited the statutory purchase right and directed eviction.
Respondent (Successor-in-title/Landlord)
- Relied on Supreme Court precedents (Amrit Bhikaji Kale, Anna Bhau Magdum, Appa Narsappa Magdum, Balchandra Anantrao Rakvi) to contend that failure to serve the Section 32-F notice is fatal and vests the land absolutely in the landlord.
- Maintained that the tenant never perfected his purchase right within the statutory period.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Amrit Bhikaji Kale v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade (1983) 3 SCC 437 | Failure to issue notice under Section 32-F results in forfeiture of purchase right. | Distinguished; in those cases the landlord under disability had not taken possession for personal cultivation. |
| Anna Bhau Magdum v. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai (1995) 5 SCC 243 | Mandatory nature of Section 32-F notice. | Held inapplicable for the same reason. |
| Appa Narsappa Magdum v. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar (1999) 4 SCC 443 | Consequences of non-compliance with Section 32-F(1-A). | Distinguished; factual matrix different. |
| Balchandra Anantrao Rakvi v. Ramchandra Tukaram (2001) 8 SCC 616 | Landlord becomes absolute owner if tenant fails to serve notice. | Distinguished on ground that it did not involve prior exercise of Section 31 rights by a widow landlord. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
1. Sections 31, 31-B, 31-C and 31-D collectively create a scheme whereby a landlord can recover up to 50 per cent of the holding for personal cultivation, but the balance must remain with the tenant and cannot be sought again for that purpose.
2. Section 31(3) extends the time for issuing termination notices only where the landlord (or her successor) has not already exercised the Section 31(1) option. Once the widow exercises that option and obtains possession, Section 31(3) becomes irrelevant and the statutory bar in Section 31-C prevents a second termination.
3. Section 32-F(1) and the concomitant notice requirement in Section 32-F(1-A) apply solely where Section 31(3) remains operative. Because Section 31-C barred any further termination after 1960, the tenant’s deemed purchase right with respect to the remaining land was no longer subject to Section 32-F at all.
4. Consequently, the tribunals and the High Court erred in treating the tenant’s failure to send a Section 32-F notice as fatal. Their approach ignored the undisputed fact—supported by contemporaneous orders and admitted by the respondent—that the widow had already obtained half the land under Section 31(1).
5. The precedents cited by the respondent were distinguished because each involved situations where the disabled landlord never exercised the Section 31 right; hence Sections 31(3) and 32-F remained in play—circumstances materially different from the present case.
6. Applying the correct statutory interpretation, the Supreme Court concluded that the tenant’s right to continue in possession, pay apportioned rent (Section 31-D) and have the purchase price determined under Section 32-G(5) survived intact.
Holding and Implications
APPEAL ALLOWED; the orders of the High Court, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, and subordinate authorities are SET ASIDE.
Direct Effect: The tenant’s possession of the remaining half of Gata No. 332 is confirmed; he is entitled to restoration if evicted pursuant to the impugned orders. Parties may proceed before the competent Tribunal for rent apportionment and fixation of purchase price as contemplated by Section 32-G(5).
Broader Implications: The decision clarifies that once a widow landlord has exercised her Section 31 right and obtained possession of the permissible extent, Section 31(3) and consequently Section 32-F cease to apply to the residue; tenants in such circumstances are not obliged to serve an “intimation of purchase” notice. The ruling thus narrows the reach of earlier precedents that treated Section 32-F notice as universally mandatory.
R.V Raveendran, J.— This appeal by special leave is against the order dated 9-7-1999 passed by the Bombay High Court rejecting WP No. 2599 of 1999 filed by the appellant. It is stated that “Sudam Ganpat Kutwal” shown as the appellant is the power-of-attorney-holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle, that he had filed WP No. 2599 of 1999 as the attorney-holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle, that he filed the SLP also as attorney-holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle, but that has not been stated in the cause-title due to oversight, though he has specifically mentioned this fact in his rejoinder-affidavit filed on 26-4-2000. In view of it, the appellant is permitted and directed to amend the cause-title so as to describe him as power-of-attorney-holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle. In view of it, the term appellant in this order would refer to Shankar Sitaram Bhosle.
2. The appellant's case in brief is as follows:
The appellant was inducted as the tenant of agricultural land bearing Gata No. 332 in Village Jogwadi, Taluk Baramati, District Pune, measuring 25 acres 9 guntas, in the year 1954 and was cultivating the same personally.
3. Under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“the Act” for short), on the first day of April, 1957 (referred to as “the tillers' day”), every tenant was deemed to have purchased the land held by him as tenant, from his landlord, free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon, on the conditions stated therein being fulfilled. The revenue records show that though the appellant was registered as the tenant of the said land on the tillers' day, his right to purchase under the deemed purchase was postponed as the landlord was a widow.
4. The landlord (Anusuyabai Bhosle) filed an application (Tenancy Application No. 3 of 1958) under Section 31 read with Section 29 of the Act, seeking possession of the land in the occupation of the appellant tenant on the ground that she required the land for her personal cultivation. The Tenancy Awal Karkun, Baramati, accepted the claim of the landlord and made an order dated 30-6-1960 directing that possession of half of the land should be delivered to the landlord for her bona fide personal cultivation and possession of the remaining half shall remain with the tenant. In pursuance of it, the appellant delivered half of the land (the eastern portion) to Anusuyabai and continued in possession of the remaining half portion. It is alleged that Anusuyabai sold the land which she got for her personal cultivation, to others under different sale deeds.
5. Anusuyabai thereafter filed Tenancy Case No. 95 of 1964 before the Mamlatdar, Baramati, seeking possession of the remaining half of the land on the ground that the appellant had committed certain defaults. The Mamlatdar rejected the said petition by the following order dated 9-2-1965:
“The applicant has already taken possession of half of the suit land from the opponent tenant. She has now applied to obtain possession of the remaining half land on the ground of defaults. The opponent has already paid the rent due to the applicant by money order. The opponent has produced the money order receipt in the matter. It is therefore clear that the opponent is not the intentional defaulter. I cannot therefore grant the request of the applicant to hand over the possession of the remaining half land. The request of the applicant is therefore refused. The application of the applicant is therefore dismissed. The parties should bear their own cost.”
6. The landlord Anusuyabai died on 23-3-1975, and thereafter, the name of her sister Shevantabai was entered as her successor-in-title in the record-of-rights. The said Shevantabai filed Application No. 72 of 1994 under Section 32-P read with Section 32-F of the Act on 19-1-1994 for a declaration that the deemed statutory purchase by the tenant be declared as void and ineffective, as the tenant had failed to fulfil the mandatory requirement of giving a notice of intimation of purchase within the time stipulated, under Section 32-F(1-A) of the Act.
7. The Agricultural Land Tribunal made an order dated 30-4-1994 accepting the contention of Shevantabai that the tenant had failed to issue a notice of purchase. The tenant was, therefore, directed to deliver possession to Shevantabai under Section 32-P(2)(b) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the tenant filed an appeal under Section 74 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati Division, in Tenancy Case No. 35 of 1994. The Appellate Authority by order dated 2-6-1995, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the matter to the Tribunal, to hold a detailed inquiry into the matter with reference to the earlier proceedings.
8. The Land Tribunal held an inquiry and made an order dated 30-9-1995, reiterating its earlier finding that the tenant had failed to serve a notice of purchase within the stipulated time and, therefore, had lost the right to purchase the land. The appellant challenged the said order also in appeal (Tenancy Case No. 27 of 1995) before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati. Shevantabai and the respondent herein who was representing her then, were the respondents in the said appeal.
9. During the pendency of the appeal, Shevantabai died on 15-4-1996. The said appeal was allowed, in part, by order dated 22-4-1996. The Appellate Authority upheld the order of the Tribunal to the extent that the tenant had failed to exercise his right by issuing a notice as required under Section 32-F(1-A) of the Act. It, however, set aside the direction to the appellant to deliver the land to Shevantabai, as that portion of the order was passed without holding any enquiry as to the landlord's right to terminate the tenancy. Consequently, the Land Tribunal was directed to hold a separate enquiry regarding the right of the landlord under Section 31 read with Section 32-F and then, if necessary, a separate enquiry under Section 32-P.
10. Both parties, that is, the respondent herein (as legal heir of Shevantabai, claiming to be legatee under her Will) as also the appellant, challenged the order dated 22/24-4-1996 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by filing revision petitions. The Revenue Tribunal by its common order dated 4-1-1999 rejected the appellant's revision and allowed in part, the respondent's revision. It held that after the death of Anusuyabai, the tenant had not exercised his right to purchase the land, by giving an intimation as required under Section 32-F(1-A) within the stipulated time and therefore, his right to purchase became ineffective and the tenancy came to an end. It also set aside the direction of the SDO that a separate inquiry should be held regarding the right of the landlord under Section 31 read with Section 32-F, followed, if necessary, by a separate inquiry under Section 32-P. A direction came to be issued for delivering possession of the disputed land to the respondent under Section 32-P.
11. The appellant challenged the order of the Tribunal in WP No. 2599 of 1999. Before the High Court, the appellant contended that the landlord (Anusuyabai) though a widow, had exercised her right of terminating the tenancy and seeking possession of the land, and that in pursuance of the order passed in such proceedings, he had delivered half of the land and therefore the question of the successor-in-title of Anusuyabai seeking possession of the balance land which remained with the tenant [under Section 31-B(1) of the Act], did not arise. The Bombay High Court dismissed the said writ petition by order dated 9-7-1999 holding that the appellant had failed to prove from the records produced, that Anusuyabai had exercised the right to get back possession under Section 31(1) of the Act or that the authority concerned had ordered delivery of half of the land to her. The said order is challenged by the tenant in this appeal by special leave.
12. The appellant contended that the High Court committed a serious error in holding that the records before it did not show that half of the land was ordered to be delivered to the landlord Anusuyabai under Section 31(1) of the Act. He referred to the High Court record which contained a copy of the order dated 2-6-1995 of the SDO in Tenancy Case No. 35 of 1994 as an annexure to the writ petition, wherein it is clearly stated thus:
“This mutation states that the landlady was a widow and the right of tenants to purchase the suit property is postponed. However, later on there were proceedings under the Tenancy Act…. The intimation of this Case No. 3 of 1958 in Tenancy Case No. 518 of 1960 is present in the lower court's papers (p. 91) which shows that half of the suit land was ordered to be handed over to the landlady….”
13. The appellant has also produced in this Court, a copy of the order dated 30-6-1960 in Tenancy Case No. 3 of 1958 directing delivery of possession of half of the land to Anusuyabai. The learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the fact that half of the land had in fact, been delivered by the tenant to Anusuyabai in pursuance of the order dated 30-6-1960. This is even referred to in the list of dates submitted on behalf of the respondent. Therefore, the facts that Anusuyabai had exercised her right to seek possession under Section 31(1), that the authority concerned had made an order directing the tenant to deliver half the land to Anusuyabai for her personal cultivation and that Anusuyabai took possession of half the tenanted land, are not in dispute.
14. The dispute in this appeal relates to the question as to whether it was necessary for the tenant to issue a notice of intimation of purchase under Section 32-F(1-A) of the Act to the successor-in-title of Anusuyabai in regard to the half portion retained by him under Section 31-B(1) read with Section 31(1) of the Act and whether the failure to do so resulted in forfeiture of the tenant's right to the said land or right to purchase the said land under the Act.
15. Reference to the relevant sections of the Act will be useful to decide this question:
Section 29 deals with the procedure of taking possession. Sub-section (2) of Section 29, as it stood at the relevant point of time (prior to commencement of Maharashtra Act 39 of 1964), provided that no landlord shall obtain possession of any land held by a tenant except under an order of the Mamlatdar, and that for obtaining such order he shall make an application in the prescribed form within a period of two years from the date on which the right to obtain possession of the land, is deemed to have accrued to him.
16. Chapter III of the Act deals with the special rights and privileges of tenants and provisions for distribution of land for personal cultivation. Part I of the said chapter (Sections 31 to 31-D) relates to termination of tenancy for personal cultivation and non-agricultural use. Part II (Sections 32 to 33) relates to purchase of land by tenants. Section 31 relates to the landlord's right to terminate tenancy for personal cultivation. Sub-section (1) enables the landlord to terminate the tenancy of any land after giving notice and making an application for possession as provided in sub-section (2), if the landlord bona fide requires the land for cultivating it personally. Sub-section (2) stipulates that the notice required to be given under sub-section (1) shall be in writing, shall state the purpose for which the landlord requires the land and shall be served on the tenant on or before 31-12-1956 and a copy of such notice shall, at the same time, be sent to the Mamlatdar, and an application for possession under Section 29 shall be made to the Mamlatdar on or before 31-3-1957. Sub-section (3) provides as follows:
“31. (3) Where a landlord is a minor, or a widow, or a person subject to mental or physical disability then such notice may be given and an application for possession under Section 29 may be made,—
(i) by the minor within one year from the date on which he attains majority;
(ii) by the successor-in-title of a widow within one year from the date on which her interest in the land ceases to exist;
(iii) within one year from the date on which mental or physical disability ceases to exist;”
17. Section 31-B provides that in no case a tenancy shall be terminated under Section 31 in such a manner as will result in leaving with a tenant, after termination, less than half the area of the land leased to him. Section 31-C provides that the tenancy of any land left with the tenant after the termination of the tenancy under Section 31 shall not at any time afterwards be liable to termination again on the ground that the landlord bona fide requires that land for personal cultivation. Section 31-D provides that if in consequence of the termination of tenancy under Section 31, any part of the land leased is left with the tenant, the rent shall be apportioned in the prescribed manner in proportion to the area of the land left with the tenant.
18. Section 32(1) provides that on the first day of April 1957 (tillers' day) every tenant shall, subject to the provisions of the next succeeding sections, be deemed to have purchased from his landlord, free of all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the said day, the land held by him as tenant, if—
“32. (1)(a) such tenant is a permanent tenant thereof and cultivates land personally;
(b) such tenant is not a permanent tenant but cultivates the land leased personally; and
(i) the landlord has not given notice of termination of his tenancy under Section 31; or
(ii) notice has been given under Section 31, but the landlord has not applied to the Mamlatdar on or before the 31st day of March, 1957 under Section 29 for obtaining possession of the land; or
(iii) the landlord has not terminated this tenancy on any of the grounds specified in Section 14, or has so terminated the tenancy but has not applied to the Mamlatdar on or before the 31st day of March, 1957 under Section 29 for obtaining possession of the lands:”
19. The words “subject to the provisions of the next succeeding sections” in Section 32(1) were amended as “subject to the other provisions of this section and the provisions of the next succeeding sections” and the following was inserted as sub-section (3), by Bombay Act 63 of 1958:
“32. (3) In respect of the land deemed to have been purchased by a tenant under sub-section (1),—
(a) the tenant purchaser shall be liable to pay to the former landlord compensation for the use and occupation of the land, a sum equal to the rent of such land every year, and
(b) the former landlord shall continue to be liable to pay to the State Government the dues, if any, referred to in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of sub-section (1) of Section 10-A, where the tenant purchaser is not liable to pay such dues under sub-section (3) of that section until the amount of the purchase price payable by the tenant purchaser to the former landlord is determined under Section 32-H.”
20. Section 32-F deals with the right of the tenant to purchase where the landlord is a minor, or a widow, or a person subject to any mental or physical disability. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 32-F provides that notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sections, where the landlord is a widow, the tenant shall have the right to purchase such land under Section 32 within one year from the expiry of the period during which such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under Section 31. Sub-section (1-A) of Section 32-F inserted by Bombay Act 38 of 1957, reads thus:
“32-F. (1-A) A tenant desirous of exercising the right conferred on him under sub-section (1) shall give an intimation in that behalf to the landlord and the Tribunal in the prescribed manner within the period specified in that sub-section:”
21. Sub-section (2) of Section 32-F provides that the provisions of Sections 32 to 32-F and 32-G to 32-R shall, so far as may be possible, apply to such purchase.
22. Section 32-G requires the Tribunal to issue notice to the parties, as soon as may be, after the tillers' day, record the statement of the tenant, whether he is willing to purchase the land and then determine the price of the land to be paid by the tenant. Sub-section (5) provides that in the case of a tenant who is deemed to have purchased the land on the postponed date, the Tribunal shall, as soon as may be, after such date, determine the price of the land.
23. The position as disclosed by a combined and harmonious reading of Sections 31, 32, 32-F and 32-G may be stated thus:
(a) Where the landlord has not served on the tenant, a notice of termination [as stated in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 32], the tenant is deemed to have purchased the land on the tillers' day (1-4-1957);
(b) Where the tenant is deemed to have purchased the land on the tillers' day (1-4-1957), the Lands Tribunal is required to issue notice and determine the price of land to be paid by the tenant. Where there is a deemed purchase, but the right to purchase is postponed, the Land Tribunal shall determine the price of land, as soon as may be after the postponed date.
(c) A landlord had a right to give notice and make an application for possession after terminating the tenancy, if he wanted the land bona fide for personal cultivation, provided the notice was served on the tenant on or before 31-12-1956 (with copy to the Mamlatdar) and application for possession under Section 29 was filed on or before 31-3-1957.
(d) A landlord widow is also entitled to make an application for possession under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Act. Sub-section (3) of Section 31 which is an enabling provision, extends the time within which the widow can seek possession under Section 31(1) of the Act, beyond 31-12-1956. As a result, where the landlord is a widow, then the notice required under sub-section (1) of Section 31 may be given and the application for possession under Section 29 may be made by her so long as her interest in the land exists. Such notice can also be given by the successor-in-title of the widow within one year from the date on which the interest of the widow in the land ceases to exist.
(e) Where the landlord is a widow [and she does not exercise her right under Section 31(1) of the Act], the right to purchase under the deemed purchase is postponed till the expiry of the period during which such (disabled) landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under Section 31(3). The tenant desirous of exercising such right shall, however, give an intimation in that behalf to the landlord and the Tribunal within one year thereafter, as required under Section 32-F(1-A).
Consequently, where the landlord, being a widow as on 1-4-1957, does not choose to terminate the tenancy for personal cultivation, the tenancy continues during her lifetime and on the death of the widow, her successor-in-title will have the right to terminate the tenancy within one year from the date of death of the widow. The tenant shall have the right to purchase such land, under Section 32, within one year from the expiry of the period during which such successor-in-title of the widow is given the right to terminate the tenancy under Section 31(3) by giving an intimation as required under Section 32-F(1-A).
(f) Where a landlord, who is a widow, exercises her right of termination and secures possession of part of the tenanted land for personal cultivation under Section 31(1) of the Act, then there is no question of her successor-in-title giving a notice of termination within one year from the date on which the widow's interest ceases to exist. When Section 31(3) ceases to apply, Section 32-F also will not apply and there is no need for the tenant to give any intimation under Section 32-F(1-A).
(g) On an order for possession being made in favour of a widow landlord in regard to land up to 50% of the tenanted land under Section 31(1) read with Section 31-B(1), the widow will get possession of such land and the tenant continues in possession in regard to the remaining land. In regard to the land remaining with the tenant, rent has to be fixed under Section 31-D, until the purchase price is determined under Section 32-G(5) and is paid by the tenant purchaser.
24. If Anusuyabai, the widow landlord who died on 23-3-1975, had died without exercising her right under Section 31(1) of the Act, and without taking back half the tenanted land, her successor-in-title could have exercised the right of termination for personal use by issuing a notice on or before 23-3-1976 [vide Section 31(3) read with Sections 31(1) and (2) of the Act]; and the appellant tenant would have had the right to purchase the tenanted land under Section 32 till 23-3-1977, provided he gave an intimation to the landlord and the Tribunal on or before 23-3-1977 under Section 32-F(1) read with Section 32-F(1-A) of the Act. But as Anusuyabai had exercised her right to take possession for personal cultivation, under Section 31(1) of the Act, during her lifetime and got possession of half of the land, no right survived under Section 31(3) to her or her successor-in-title to seek the remaining land for personal cultivation having regard to the bar contained in Section 31-C. If the widow landlord and her successor-in-title lost the right to terminate the tenancy in regard to the remaining land (having regard to the bar contained in Section 31-C) and therefore, Section 31(3) ceased to apply, it follows that Section 32-F also did not apply. This is because, the right has to be exercised under Section 32-F(1), only where Section 31(3) applied. If Section 32-F(1) did not apply, there was no need at all for the tenant to issue any notice of intimation to the landlord or to the successor-in-title of the landlord proposing to purchase the land under Section 32-F(1-A).
25. Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter has been completely overlooked by the High Court and the authorities under the Act. The authorities under the Act proceeded on the assumption that even where a widow landlord had terminated the tenancy and taken possession of the permissible extent of tenanted land, Section 31(3) would continue to apply and consequently, Section 32-F will also apply, and therefore, there was a need for the tenant to give a notice of intimation of purchase under Section 32-F(1-A), on the death of Anusuyabai. The High Court, however, did not examine this aspect at all as it proceeded on the basis that the widow landlord did not terminate the tenancy and take possession of the permissible extent of land.
26. As the appellant's case is governed by Sections 31(1), 31-B(1) and 31-C, rent for the land remaining with the tenant [after the landlord has taken half the land under Section 31(1) of the Act] had to be apportioned as provided in Section 31-D, and the liability to pay such rent would continue until price for the land is determined under Section 32-G(5) on either the landlord or the tenant approaching the Tribunal, and such price is paid by the tenant.
27. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decisions of this Court in Amrit Bhikaji Kale v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade (1983) 3 SCC 437, Anna Bhau Magdum v. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai (1995) 5 SCC 243, Appa Narsappa Magdum v. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar (1999) 4 SCC 443 and Balchandra Anantrao Rakvi v. Ramchandra Tukaram (2001) 8 SCC 616 to contend that the tenant has to issue a notice under Section 32-F within the period prescribed and if he fails to do so, he loses the right to purchase the land and the landlord will become entitled to the same absolutely. These were all cases where the landlord under disability had not sought possession for personal cultivation under Section 31(1) and where admittedly, Sections 31(3) and 32-F applied and consequently, there was an obligation on the part of the tenant to send an intimation under Section 32-F(1-A). None of the cases related to a widow landlord who had terminated the tenancy during her lifetime and taken possession of a portion of the tenanted land. Therefore, the said decisions will not apply.
28. As a consequence, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of the High Court and those of the authorities below and hold that the appellant tenant continued to be the tenant of the land which remained with him after delivering half of the land to the landlord Anusuyabai in pursuance of the order dated 30-6-1960 made on her application under Section 31(1) read with Section 29 of the Act. The appellant shall be entitled to restoration, if he has been dispossessed by the respondent from any part of his land in Gata No. 332 in pursuance of the order of SDO/Revenue Tribunal/High Court. Parties will also be entitled to seek benefits/reliefs referred to in para 26 above.
Alert