Vested tenant purchase right preserved despite later proviso; statutory fiction given full effect and section 32-O held inapplicable.

The tenant's statutory right to be deemed a purchaser on the tillers' day was held to have vested under the tenancy law and to survive the proviso to section 8 of the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Office) Act, 1962. The court applied the principle that a legal fiction conferring an accrued right must be given full effect, and that a proviso cannot be read to destroy a substantive vested right unless the statute clearly so provides. Section 8 was construed as only postponing the operative date for re-grant, not abrogating purchase rights, and section 32-O was therefore inapplicable. The tenant's entitlement under section 32-G was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the tenant's statutory right to purchase the land under the tenancy law, which had crystallized on the tillers' day, was taken away or postponed by the proviso to section 8 of the Maharashtra Revenue Patels (Abolition of Office) Act, 1962 so as to attract section 32-O of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

Analysis: The tenancy law conferred a statutory right on the tenant to be deemed purchaser on 1 April 1957, and that legal fiction had to be given full effect. Section 31 did not terminate the tenancy, no notice having been served and no possession proceeding having been initiated within the prescribed time. Section 8 of the 1962 Act, read harmoniously with the relevant tenancy provisions, only postponed the operation of the tenancy law for fixing the date of re-grant; it did not abrogate an accrued or vested right. A proviso has a limited role and ordinarily does not destroy a substantive right already vested. On that construction, section 32-O, which deals with purchase within one year from commencement of tenancy, was not attracted.

Conclusion: The tenant's right to purchase had vested under section 32 and was not divested by the proviso to section 8 of the 1962 Act; the contrary view was rejected and the tenant's entitlement under section 32-G was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the statutory scheme preserved the tenant's vested purchase right and did not permit the landlord to defeat it by invoking section 32-O.

Ratio Decidendi: A vested statutory right created by a legal fiction must be given full effect, and a proviso cannot be construed to extinguish that accrued right unless the statute clearly says so.

---