Holding

When a landlord seeks possession under Section 29 read with Section 31, Section 32F(IA) is inapplicable and the two provisions are mutually exclusive.

Summary

The case concerned agricultural land in Pune owned by a landlord who was a minor at the tiller’s day and later attained majority. The landlord served notice to terminate the tenancy under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, but failed to commence possession proceedings under Section 29 within the prescribed period. The tenant applied under Section 32F/32G to purchase the land; the authority rejected the application, the appellate authority remanded it, and later held the tenant’s purchase right forfeited, directing proceedings under Section 32P. The Supreme Court was asked whether Section 32F(IA) applies when the landlord seeks possession under Sections 29 and 31, and whether these provisions are mutually exclusive. The Court held that when a landlord applies for possession under Section 29 read with Section 31, the tenant’s right under Section 32F(IA) becomes inapplicable, making the provisions mutually exclusive. It also affirmed that the Tribunal erred in deeming the tenant a purchaser without proper intimation, thereby upholding the High Court and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal decisions.

Issues considered

Whether Section 32F(IA) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 becomes inapplicable when a landlord applies for recovery of possession under Section 29 read with Section 31.
Whether Sections 29/31 and Section 32F are mutually exclusive.

Legislation cited

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948s. 29, s. 31, s. 32, s. 32F, s. 32G, s. 32P, s. 33

Subjects

tenancyevictionlandlord's right to possessiontenant's right to purchaseSection 29Section 31Section 32Fmutual exclusivityBombay Tenancy Actagricultural landintimationdeemed purchaser

Judgment

"" ~ BABU VITHU GAIKWAD (DEAD) BV. LRS.
v.
A

CHINTAMAN SADASHIV AND ORS.

MAY 16, 2007

[A.K. MATHUR AND TAR UN CHATTERJEE, JJ.] B

Rent Control and Eviction:
,.;-'...
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948; Ss. 29, 31, 32 and
33: Issuance of notice for termination of tenancy-Landlord failing to initiatec
proceedings against tenant under s. 29 of 1948 Act-Tenant filing an
application under s. 32F and 320 of the Act for purchasing the tenanted
premises-Rejected by the Authority-Appeal allowed by the Appellate
Authority remitting the matter back to the Authority for disposal afresh-
Authority directing the tenant to initiate proceeding in terms of s. 32P of the D
Act as his right to purchase the property in question forfeited in terms of
provisions u/s. 32F of the Act-On appeal, Appellate Authority remitting
back the matter to the authority for fixation of the price of the property in
r
.> accordance with the Law-Filing of Review Petition by Landlord before
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal-Allowed by the Tribunal-Challenge to-
Dismissed by High Court-On appeal, Held: s. 320 rlw s. 33 of the Act deal E
with the right of the Landlord to terminate the tenancy on the ground of
personal use-On the contrary s. 32F deals with the right of the tenant to
purchase the land in case the Landlord is a minor-They contradicts each
other as in case Landlord exercise his right, the tenant cannot and vice-
versa-Besides, an error on the part of the Landlord does not mean that the
F
.--(·
tenant's right under s. 32F could be evoked automatically-Tribunal was
right in observing that the Appellate Authority holding the tenant to be
deemed purchaser without complying with the requirements of farnishings
the requisite intimation in terms of s. 32F of the Act-Tribunal is duty bound
to give opportunity to the Landlord/any of the party to be heard before
deciding the value of the Land-Since intimation as furnished by the tenant G
was inconsistent with law, Appellate Authority erred in holding the tenant
as deemed purchaser--:-Hence, the order of the Tribunal as affirmed by the
·-. High Court upheld.

1067 H
1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 6 S.C.R.

A Appellants are heirs and legal representatives of the original tenant in
respect of an agricultural land, which was owned by the father of respondent
No. 1. Respondent No. 1 issued notice to the tenant for termination of his
tenancy in respect of the said land. However, he had failed to initiate
proceedings under Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
B Act. Later, the tenant had filed an application under Section 32F read with
Section 32G of the Act for purchasing the tenanted premises/disputed land.
The Authority rejected the application of the tenant The tenant filed an appeal
before the Appellate Authority, which was allowed and the matter was remitted
back to the Authority for disposal afresh. The Authority held that under
Section 32F of the Act, right of the tenant to purchase the land was forfeited.
C Aggrieved, the tenant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which
was allowed by it by remanding the matter back to the Authority for holding
an enquiry under Section 32G to 32R of the Act for fixing the price of the
land in question in accordance with law. Aggrieved, the landlord-respondent
No.I filed a Revision Petition before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which
was allowed by the Tribunal, against which the tenants had filed a writ petition
D in the High Court, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment. Hence,
the present appeals.

Appellants-legal representatives of the tenant contended that the tenant
had shown his willingness to purchase the land in the proceedings before the
E trial authority under Section 32G of the Act; and that the Tribunal as well
the Authority have misconstrued the provisions of Section 32 and 32F of the
Act and therefore the order passed by the High Court and the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal deserve to be set aside.

Dismissing the appeals, the Court
F HELD: 1.1. Section 29 and Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Land Act, if read together, deal with the process involved in a
situation where the landlord wants to take possession of his land from the
tenant and his right to terminate the tenancy for personal use. S. 32F on the
contrary speaks about the right of the tenant to purchase the land in case the
G landlord is a minor. Both the parts contradict each other in the sense that if
the landlord gets to exercise his right, the tenant cannot and vice versa. Thus,
it is only logical to conclude that when a landlord applies for recovery of
possession under s. 29 read withs. 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Land Act, 1948, the provision of Section 32F(lA) of the said Act become
H inapplicable, thereby making them mutually exclusive to the extent that if one
BABU VITHU GAIKW AD (DEAD) BY LRS. v. CHINT AMAN SADASHIV 1069

{
is applicable, the other could not be evoked. That apart, it must be borne in A
mind that an error on the part of the landlord does not mean that the tenants'
rights under Section 32F are evoked automatically. (Para 131 (1077-E, F, G]

1.2. In the present case, the Tribunal was of the view that the tenants
had not brought anything on record that showed that they had filed any
application in accordance with section 32F in order to purchase the land in B
question. It stated that the Appellate Authority had held them to be deemed
purchasers even though the intimations that were put by the tenants were not
in accordance with law. (Para 141 (1077-H; 1078-A)
,,,~
1.3. Section 32G of the Act speaks about the power of the Tribunal to
issue notice and determine price of land to be paid by the tenants. The tenants c
under this section have to show willingness to purchase the land after which
the Tribunal is duty bound to give opportunity to the landlord and any other
concerned party to be heard before deciding the value of the land. In the
present case, the Tribunal was of the view that the second limb of the condition
has not be satisfied, i.e., the landlord's statements were not brought on record. D
This was the inconsistency in the process. Considering this, the Court is of
the view that since the intimation was inconsistent with law, the Appellate
Authority erred in holding the tenants as deemed purchasers, the decision
> given by the Tribunal and the Single Judge Bench of the High Court on this
>
aspect is upheld. [Para 14) (1078-B, CJ
E
2. When a landlord applies for recovery of possession under Section 29
read with Section 31 of the Act, the provision of Section 32F(IA) of the Act
become inapplicable, thereby making them mutually exclusive to the extent
that if one is applicable, the other could not be invoked.
(Para 21) (1080-B, CJ
F
Harshavardhan Shrinivas Potnis v. Mahadu Pundalik Gangurde, AIR
(1980] Bombay 198 and Amrit Bhikaji Kale and Ors. v. Kashinath Janardhan
"" Trade and Anr., AIR (1983) SC 643, distinguished.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 2337-2338 of
G
2000.

From the Judgment and Order dated 15.9.1999 and Order dated 1.10.1997
. ; of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in C.A. No. 8320/1997 & 139/1984.

Amo! Chitale, Nikhil Shakerdande, V.D. Khanna for the Appellant.
H
1070 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A Sanjay V. Kharde, Chandan Ramamurth for the Respondents.
)-
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

TARUN CHATTERJEE, J, I. These appeals are preferred against the
final order 1st October, 1997 and order dated 15th September, 199.9 passed in
B C.A.No.8320of1997 by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay in Writ Petition No.139 of 1984. By the order dated Ist October
1997, the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the aforesaid writ
petition in which the appellants prayed for quashing a judgment and order
of Maharasthra Revenue Tribunal [in short MRT] dated 30th August, 1983 in
Revision Application No. MRT P 14 of 1981 by which the Tribunal had )..- "
c confinned the order passed by the Tehsildar in Tenancy Case No.32 FG/54/
78 dated 31st August, 1978. In the application under Article 227 of the
Constitution, a prayer was also made by the appellants to restore the order
passed by the Appellate Court in Tenancy Appeal No.56 of 1979 dated 27th
October, 1980.
D
2. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals in short may be stated
as follows:

3. Agriculture land ( for short "the aforesaid land") bearing Survey ~
No.175/1 admeasuring 2 acres and 11 gunthas situated at Village Biwadi, Tai ...
E Purandhar, District Pune was owned by Sadashiv Purandhare, father of the
respondent No:J Chintaman Sadashiv. Babu Vithu Gaikwad whose heirs and
legal representatives are the appellants in this Court was the original tenant
in'respect of the aforesaid land. A partition of the aforesaid land was affected
by the deceased father of the respondents by which the disputed land was
allotted to him. On the tillers day, i.e., !st April, 1957 the respondent No. I was
F a minor. He attained majority on 6th October, 1960. In compliance with Section
31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter y
called the 'Act'), the respondent No.I issued notice to Babu Vithu Gaikwad
[since deceased] for tennination of his tenancy in respect of the aforesaid
land. This tennination notice was issued within one year of attaining the age
G of majority. The landlord-respondent No. I had failed to take out proceedings
under Section 29 of the Act until he filed an application on 27th March, 1962.
Since the application under Section 29 of the Act was time barred, the
proceedings taken out by the landlord-respondent No. I were withdrawn on
5th September, 1964. After one year of such withdrawal, Babu Vithu Gaikwad -,. •
-the tenant- had filed an application under Section 32F read with Section 32G
H of the Act on 2nd August, 1965. In these proceedings, on 6th October, 1967,
BABU VITHU GAIKWAD (DEAD) BY LRS. '· CHINTAMAN SADASHIV [TARUN CHATTERJEE, I.] 107 J
a statement of the tenant was recorded that he was willing to purchase the A
disputed land. The additional Tehsildar rejected the application of the tenant
by his order dated 28th January, 1973. The tenant filed an appeal before the
Sub Divisional Officer which was allowed and the matter was remitted back
to the Additional Tehsildar for fresh disposal. After a month by his order
dated 3 lst August, 1978, the Additional Tehsildar held that under Section 32F
the right of the tenant to purchase the aforesaid land was forfeited and, B
hence, directed that proceedings could be initiated under Section 32P of the
Act. Aggrieved by this order, the tenant preferred an appeal before the
Additional Collector, Pune and by an order dated 27th October, 1980 he
,.., -',
allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to Additional Tehsildar for
holding ~n enquiry under Section 32G to 32R of the Act for fixing the price c
for purchase in accordance with law. Being aggrieved, the landlord-respondent
No. I filed a revision petition before the MRT, Pune which was allowed by the
tribunal by an order dated 30th August, 1983 and against this order the
tenants had filed a writ petition in the High Court of judicature at Bombay,
which was dismissed by the impugned order in respect of which special leave
petition was filed and leave was granted. D

4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined all
.,.,
~
the orders mentioned above and the materials on record. Before considering
whether the High Court was justified in con finning the order of the tribunal,
it would be appropriate to refer to some of the relevant provisions of the Act
E
which would be required for consideration in order to dispose of the appeals.

"29. Procedure of taking possession:- (I) A tenan.t or an agricultural
labourer or artisan entitled to possession of any land or dwelling
house under any of the provisions of this Act may apply in writing
for possession to the Mamlatdar. The application shall be niade in F
-< such fonn as 'may be prescribed and within a period oftwo years from .
the date on which the right to obtain possession of the land or the
dwelling house is deemed to have accrued to the tenant, agricultural
labourer or artisan, as the case may be.

(2) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (3A), no landlord shall G
obtain possession of any land or dwelling house held by a tenant
except under an order of the Mamlatdar. For obtaining such order he
- '( shall make an application in the prescribed fonn and within a period
of two years from the date on which the right to obtain possession
of the land or the dwelling house, as the case may be, is deemed to
have accrued to him. H
1072 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.
)-
A (3) On receipt of application under sub-section (I) or (2) the Mamlatd:rr
after holding an enquiry, pass such orders thereon as he deems fit:

Provided that where an application under sub-section (2) is made by
a landlord in pursuance of the right conferred on him under section
31, the Mamlatdar shall first decide, as preliminary issues, whether the
B conditions specified in clause (c) and (d) of Section 31 A and sub-
section (2) and (3) of Section 3IB are satisfied. If the Mamlatdar finds
that any of the said conditions is not satisfied, he shall reject the
application forthwith.
>- '-.,
(3A) Where a landlord proceeds for termination of the tenancy under
c sub-section (I) of Section 43-18, then, notwithstanding anything
contained in this Act, the application for possession shall be made to
the Collector, who shall after holding an enquiry in the prescribed
manner, pass such orders thereon as he deems fit.

(4) Any person taking possession of any land or dwelling house
D except in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (I), (2) or as
the case may be, (3A), shall be liable for forfeiture of crops, if any,
grown in the land in addition to payment of costs as may be directed
by the Mamlatdar or by the Collector and also to the penalty prescribed ~
.
in section 81."
E "31. Landlord's right to terminate tenancy for personal cultivation and
nonagricultural purposes.- (I) notwithstanding anything contained in
section 14 and 30 but subject to sections 3 IA to 3 ID (both inclusive),
a landlord (not being a landlord within the meaning of Chapter III-AA)
may, after giving notice and making an application for possession as
F provided in sub-section (2), terminate the tenancy of any land (except
a permanent tenancy), if the landlord bona fide' requires the land for r
any of the following purposes:-
(Q cultivating personally, or
(ii) for non-agricultural purposes.
G
(2) The notice required to be given under sub-section (I) 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 31st day of ..,.. -
December 19 56. A copy of such notice shall, at the same time, be sent
to the Mamlatdar. An application for possession under Section 29
H shall be made to the Mamlatdar on or before 31st day of March 1957.
BABU VITHU GA!KW AD (DEAD) BY LRS. v. CH!NT AMAN SADASH!V (T ARUN CHATIERJEE, J.) J07J

~
(3) Where landlord is a minor, or a widow, or a person subject to A
mental or physical disabilities 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 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;
B
iii) within one year from the date on which mental or physical
disability ceases to exist; and

,.,;
--< Provided that where a person of such category is a member of a joint
family, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply if at least one c
member of the joint family is outside the categories mentioned in this
sub-section unless before the 31st day of March 1958 the share of
such person in the joint family has been separated by metes and
bounds and the Mamlatdar on enquiry is satisfied that the share of
such person in the land is separated, having regards to the area,
assessment, classification and value of land, in the same proportion D
as the share of that person in the entire joint family property, and not
in a larger proportion."
,.
"32F. Right of tenant to purchase where landlord is minor, etc.- (I)
notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sections,-
E
a) where the landlord is a minor, or a widow, or a person subject
to any mental or physical disability 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 and for enabling the
tenant to exercise the right of purchase, the landlord shall send F
--(' an intimation to the tenant of the fact that he has attained majority,
before the expiry of the period during which such landlord is
entitled to terminate the tenancy under section 31:
_Provided that where a person of such category is a member of a
joint family, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply if G
at least one member of the family is outside the categories
mentioned in this sub-section unless before the 3 lst day of March
- i 1958, the share of such person in the joint family has been
separated by metes and bounds and the Mamlatdar on enquiry is
satisfied that the share of such person in the land is separated, H
1074 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 6 S.C.R.

A having regards to the area, assessment, classification and value
of land, in the same proportion as the share of that person in the
entire joint family property, and not in a larger proportion.
b) Where the tenant is a minor, or a widow or a person subject
to any mental or physical disability or serving member of the
B armed forces, then subject to the provisions of clause (a), the
right to purchase land under section 32 may be exercised-
i) by the minor within one year from 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;
c iii) within one year from the date on which mental or physical
disability ceases to exist; and
iv) within one year from the date on which the tenant ceases to
be a serving member of the armed forces:
D Provided that where a person of such category is a member of a joint
family the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply if at least one
member of the family is outside the categories mentioned in this sub-
section unless before the 3 lst day of March 1958, the share of such
person in the joint family has been separated by metes and bounds
and the Mamlatdar on enquiry is satisfied that the share of such
E
person in the land is separated, having regards to the area, assessment,
classification and value of land, in the same proportion as the share
of that person in the entire joint family property, and not in a larger
proportion.

(IA) A tenant desirous of exercising the right conferred on him under
F
sub-section (1) shall give an intimation in that behalf to the landlord
and the Tribunal in the prescribed manner within the period specified r
in that sub-section:

Provided that if a tenant holding land from a landlord (who was a
G minor and has attained majority before the commencement of the
Tenancy and Agricultural Land Laws (amendment) Act, 1969) has not
given intimation as required by this sub-section but being in
possession ofthe land on such commencement is desirous ofexercising
the right conferred upon him under sub-section (I), he may give such
intimation within a period of two years from the commencement of that
H Act.
BABU VITHU GAIKW AD (DEAD) BY LRS. •·. ClflNT AMAN SADASHIV [T ARUN CHATTERJEE, I.] J07 5
(2) The provisions of Section 32 to 32E (both inclusive) and section A
32G to 32R (both inclusive) shall, so far as may be applicable, apply
to such purchase."

5. At this stage, we may also note that the order of the High Court
dated 1st October, 1997 was sought to be reviewed by the appellants which
by the order dated 15th September 1999 was also rejected. We may mention B
here that since the appellants have challenged the final order along with the
order passed in the review petition it would not be necessary for us to deal
-1, with the question whether the High Court was justified in rejecting the review
application. Let us, therefore, confine ourselves to the order of the High
Court by which the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution was rejected. C
6. On behalf of the appellants it was submitted that the tenant had
shown his willingness to purchase the aforesaid land in the proceedings
before the trial authority under Section 32G of the Act. According to the
learned counsel for the appellants the tribunal as well the Tehsildar have
misconstrued the provisions of Section 32 and 32F of the Act and therefore D
the order passed by the High Court and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal
deserve to be set aside and the order passed in Appeal No. 56 of 1979 dated
27th October 1980 must be restored.

7. Before the Additional Tehsildar, the question that was raised by the
parties was about the partition affected between them. The Tehsildar held E
that the tenant had in no uncertain terms accepted Chintaman Sadashiv
Purandhare as his landlord and paid rent to him and received rent receipts
from him and this conduct on the part of the tenant must be construed to
be a waiver. The Tehsildar also held that after accepting Chintaman Sadashiv
Purandhare as his landlord and paid rent to him and received rent receipts F
from him, it was not open to the tenant to say that Chintaman Sadashiv
Purandhare was not his landlord. On the above findings, the Tehsildar held
that the partition was valid and genuine and Chintaman Sadashiv Purandhare
was the landlord of the aforesaid land.

8. After deciding the question of partition, the Tehsildar went on to G
decide whether the tenant had complied with the provisions regarding giving
intimation within the period specified in Section 32G of the Act. After
considering the fact, that the landlord was a minor on the tillers day, i.e., on
1st April, 1957 and, therefore, the tenant could not become entitled to purchase
the aforesaid land as contemplated in Section 32F of the Act. The Tehsildar
also found from the record that the landlord had attained majority on 6th H
1076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 6 S.C.R.

A October, 1960 and it was incumbent on the part of the tenant to give intimation ...
of purchase of the aforesaid land by 6th October, 1962, in view of Section 32F
of the Act. According to the Tehsildar, the tenant had failed to comply with
the mandatory requirement as enjoined by Section 32F of the Act. Accordingly,
the application was rejected by the Tehsildar, inter alia, on the findings that
B the partition was valid and genuine and the tenant had forfeited the right of
purchase conferred on him by Section 32F of the Act and therefore directed
that the purchase by the tenant became ineffective. In appeal the order of the
Tehsildar was set aside and appeal filed against the said order was allowed
and the case was sent back to the Tehsildar for conducting an enquiry under ~
Section 32G for fixing the purchase price in accordance with law.
c 9. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of the Appellate
Authority, a revision was filed at the instance of the present respondent
which came to be registered as Revision Application No. MRT-PIL 4/1981.
However, the Revisional Authority agreed with the findings of the Tehsildar
to the extent that the tenant had failed to exercise his right to purchase the
D land as he did not give intimation as required under Section 32F ( 1)-A of the
Act. So far as the question of intimation as required under Section 32G of the
Act is concerned, the Revisional Authority found that two things were
necessary in order to show that the statement of the tenant recorded in the
proceedings under Section 32G of the Act amounted to an intimation.
E Accordingly, it was held that there should be a statement of the tenant
recorded in the proceedings under Section 32G of the Act and such statement
must be recorded in the presence of the landlord. However, the Revisional
Authority found that the aforesaid two ingredients were absent in the present
case and, accordingly, provisions of Section 32F of the Act regarding intimation
to be given by the tenant were not complied with. On the aforesaid findings,
F the Revisional Authority came to the conclusion of fact that the tenant had
failed to exercise his right to purchase the land and, therefore, the trial court, y
namely, the Tehsildar was perfectly justified in holding that the proceedings
under Section 32P of the Act should be started. The revision application was
thus allowed and the order passed by the Appellate Authority was set aside
G and that of the Tehsildar was restored.
10. Feeling aggrieved by this order of the Revisional Authority, the
appellants filed a writ petition before the High Court which came to be y-
registered as Writ Petition No.139 of 1984 and by the impugned order the High
Court dismissed the writ petition and held that there was no error of jurisdiction
H
BABU VITHU GAIKWAD (DEAD) BY LRS. 1•. CHINT AMAN SADASHIV (T ARUN CHATTERJEE, l.] } 077

·\ nor was there any error apparent on the face of the record and accordingly A
the order passed by the Tehsildar and affirmed by the MRT was perfectly
• valid and did not warrant any interference. Feeling aggrieved by this order
of the High Court, the appellants preferred special leave petition in this
court.

11. Before us, the following questions were raised for our discussion by B
the Learned Counsel for the parties. The questions raised before us for being
decided may be listed as:

I. Whether the provisions of Section 32F(IA) of Bombay Tenancy
and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 become inapplicable when a landlord
applies for recovery of possession under section 29 r/w Section 31 of C
the said Act?

2. Whether Section 29 read with Section 31 and Section 32F of the Act
are mutually exclusive?

12. Since the aforesaid two questions are interrelated, let us discuss the D
two issues together. As noted hereinabove, Section 29 deals with the procedure
involved in taking possession by a landlord, Section 31 talks about landlord's
t right to terminate tenancy for personal cultivation and nonagricultural purposes
f while Section 32F pertains to right of tenant to purchase where landlord is
minor.
E
13. Section 29 and 31 if read together deal with the process involved
in a situation where the landlord wants to take possession of his land from
the tenant and his right to tern1inate the tenancy for personal use. Section 32F
on the contrary speaks about the right of the tenant to purchase the land in
case the landlord is a minor. Both the parts contradict each other in the sense F
..,.. that if the landlord gets to exercise his right, the tenant cannot and vise versa.
Thus, in our view, it is only logical to conclude that when a landlord applies
for recovery of possession under section 29 read with Section 31 of the
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, the provision of Section
32F(JA) of said Act become inapplicable, thereby making them mutually
exclusive to the extent that if one is applicable, the other could not be evoked. G
That apart, it must be borne in mind that an error on the part of the landlord
• , does not mean that the tenants' rights under Section 32F are evoked
automatically.

14. However, considering the present case, it is important to note that H
1078 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 6 S.C.R.
,),.
A the Tribunal was of the view that the tenants had not brought anything on
record that sh!Jwed that they had filed any application in accordance with
section 32F in order to purchase the aforesaid land. It stated that the Appellate
Authority had held them to be deemed purchasers even though the intimations
that were put by the tenants were not in accordance with law. It is important
to mention here that Section 32G speaks about the power of the Tribunal to
B issue notice and determine price of land to be paid by the tenants. The
tenants under this section have to show willingness to purchase the land
after which the Tribunal is duty bound to give opportunity to the landlord
and any other concerned party to be heard before deciding the value of the )--

land. In the present case, the Tribunal was of the view that the second limb
c of the condition had not been satisfied, i.e., the landlord's statements were
not brougpt on record. This was the inconsistency in the process. Considering
this, we too are of the view that since the intimation was inconsistent with '
law, the Appellate Authority erred in holding the tenants as deemed purchasers.
We, thereby, uphold the decision given by the Tribunal and the Single Judge
Bench of the High Court of Bombay on this aspect.
D
15. Before we part with this judgment we find it appropriate to discuss
the cases mentioned in the application which were not looked into by the
High Court. The first case is that of Harshavardhan Shrinivas Potnis v.
Mahadu Pundalik Gangurde AIR (1980) Bombay! 98. In that case, the disputed
property belonged to one Girijabai, who was admittedly a widow and had not
E
exercised her right of resumption under Section 31 of the Act till her death.
Girijabai died on 4th June, 1965. By a will executed by her, she bequeathed
the two fields in question in favour of the petitioner who was then minor
having been born on 13th June, 1956. He attained majority on 13th June, 1976.

F 16. The High Court observed that the minor who succeeded to the
interest of a widow after 31st December 1956 was not a person who was a 'I'
landlord either on 31st December 1956 and he cannot take advantage of the
extension of the period provided for a minor who was a landlord on 31st
December, 1958. The period during which the minor after having succeeded
to the widow could have terminated the tenancy of the tenant under Section
G 31 (3) was one year from the time of her death. The intimation required to be
given under Section 32F (IA) by the tenant in order to exercise his right of
purchase should have been given within one year from the expiry of the .,.. ..
period of one year referred to in Section 31 (3 ). Thus the period in the instant
case, during which the tenant should have served an intimation, was within
H two years from the death of the widow. This case is however distinguishable
BABU VITHU GAIKWAD (DEAD) BY LRS. '· CHINTAMAN SADASHIV [TARUN CHATTERJEE, l.J J079
.. -\ from the' one at hand as this case deals with succession in case of death of A
a widow whereas the one before us is specific to the rights of a minor as
becoming the landlord of the disputed property on attaining the age of
majority.

17. The case of Amrit Bhikaji Kale and Ors. v. Kashinath Janardhan
Trade and Anr., AIR (1983) SC 643 is also distinguishable from the one before B
us. In that case, the disputed property belonged to Tarachand Chopra.
Janardhan, the father of the respondent was admittedly the tenant of this land
on 1st April, 1957. Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
,,I -I, Act, 1948 as amended from time to time provided that on the !st April, 1957
styled as the tillers' day every tenant shall subject to other provisions of the
section and the provisions of the next succeeding sections be deemed to
c
have purchased from his landlord, free from all encumbrances subsisting
thereon on the same date the land held by him as a tenant if other conditions
of the section are satisfied. Thus by operation of law, Janardhan, who was
the tenant of the land on the tillers' day became the deemed purchaser
thereof. Landlord Tarachand died 01 1 August 12, 1959. Before his death, D
landlord Tarachand had executed a will and bequeathed the suit land to
Ashoklal Gugale who got his name mutated in the revenue record in respect
> of the suit land in his favour as owner. However, on the date of mutation,
# Ashoklal was a minor.

18. The said Janardhan applied to the Tribunal for purchase of the land
and fixation of price of the same. The Tribunal went into the records and held
that Tarachand was the recorded landlord and being under no disability and
Janardhan being tenant of the land, by operation of law, became deemed
purchaser and all subsequent proceedings were null, void and nonest. The
Tribunal accordingly determined the purchase price. The High Court upheld
the said decision.

19. The Supreme Court after going through the records was of the
following opinion:

"Janardhan was deprived of his possession by an order which had no
legal sanction. He was deprived of possession on the footing that he
was a tenant ignoring and overlooking the statutory event that he had
become the owner. Even when the Legislature passed such a
revolutionary measure its knowledge was not transmitted to the persons
for whose benefit the measure was enacted and there was no
1080 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 6 S.C.R.

A awakening to one's right."
f
.
20. On examining the above mentioned case, we are of the opinion that
the case of Amrit Bhikaji Kale pertains to determination of the question
whether Janardhan was a deemed purchaser or not. However, in the case
before us, the rights of the minor are not disputed. The question of the
B tenants becoming a deemed purchaser does not arise in the present case as
the land was transferred in the name of the minor before the tiller's day.

21. As per our discussions above, we, therefore, hold that when a
landlord applies for recovery of possession under Section 29 read with Section >--
31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, the provision of
c Section 32F(lA) of said Act become inapplicable, thereby making them
mutually exclusive to the extent that if one is applicable, the other could not
be evoked.

22. For the reasons aforesaid, the answers to the question raised as
noted herein earlier are in the negative. Therefore, we dismiss the appeals
D
upholding the decision of the High Court of Bombay and the MRT, with no
orders as to costs.

S.K.S. Appeals dismissed. '(
...