Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the tenant was bound to serve the written intimation contemplated by Section 32F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and whether failure to do so defeated the right to purchase the land.
Analysis: Section 32F operates independently of Section 31 in the sense that the tenant's right to purchase, where the landlord is a widow or other disabled person, arises only in the manner and within the time prescribed by Section 32F. The requirement under Section 32F(1A) to intimate the landlord and the Tribunal is mandatory and calls for strict compliance. The fact that proceedings had earlier been taken under Section 32G, or that instalments had been paid, did not amount to compliance with Section 32F. On the facts, the tenant had not served any written notice or intimation expressing the intention to purchase the land, despite knowledge of the person claiming title.
Conclusion: The tenant was required to serve written notice under Section 32F, and failure to comply resulted in loss of the right to purchase the land.