Widow-landlord tenancy termination: no Section 32F notice needed for remaining land after lawful possession under personal cultivation provisions.

Where a widow-landlord has already lawfully terminated a tenancy for personal cultivation under Section 31(1) and taken possession of the maximum land permitted under Section 31B(1), the statutory bar in Section 31C prevents further termination of the remaining land on the same ground. In that situation, Sections 31(3) and 32F do not govern the residue left with the tenant, so the postponed purchase regime is not triggered. Accordingly, no intimation of intention to purchase under Section 32F(1A) is required to be served on the successor-in-title, and failure to give such notice does not forfeit the tenant's rights in the remaining land.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after a widow-landlord had already terminated the tenancy under Section 31(1) and obtained possession of the permissible half of the land under Section 31B(1), the tenant was still required to give an intimation of purchase under Section 32F(1A) to the widow's successor-in-title in respect of the remaining land, and whether failure to do so extinguished the tenant's right to continue as tenant or to purchase that remaining land.

Analysis: On a combined reading of Sections 31, 31B, 31C, 31D, 32, 32F and 32G, the right of a widow-landlord to terminate the tenancy for personal cultivation survives so long as she has not exercised it. Once she exercises that right during her lifetime and takes possession of the extent permitted by Section 31B(1), the bar in Section 31C operates against any further termination of the remaining land on the same ground. In that situation, Section 31(3) no longer applies to the residue left with the tenant, and the postponed purchase regime under Section 32F is also not attracted. The obligation under Section 32F(1A) to intimate an intention to purchase arises only where Section 32F(1) is operative. Since the widow had already exercised the right of termination and the tenant had retained the balance land under the statutory scheme, no notice under Section 32F(1A) was necessary to be given to the successor-in-title.

Conclusion: The tenant did not forfeit his rights for want of intimation under Section 32F(1A), and he continued to remain tenant of the land retained by him after handing over half of the land under the order passed on the widow-landlord's application.

Final Conclusion: The orders of the authorities below and the High Court were set aside, and the tenant's continued tenancy over the remaining land was upheld with consequential restoration relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a widow-landlord has already lawfully terminated the tenancy under Section 31(1) and obtained possession of the maximum extent permitted by Section 31B(1), Sections 31(3) and 32F do not apply to the remaining land, and the tenant is not required to serve an intimation under Section 32F(1A) to the successor-in-title.

---