TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (9) TMI 1016
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istrict in the state of Maharashtra (in short "the disputed land"). Late Smt. Narmadabai who was a widow, was the original landowner of the disputed land. She died in 1964 leaving behind her two sons Ramchandra and Laxman Bhau Sutar. On 1st of April, 1957, i.e. on the Tiller's Day, the Appellant was in cultivation of the disputed land. The original tenant named Maruti died subsequently in 1994 during the pendency of the Writ Petition in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay. The original tenant had initiated proceedings under Section 32G of the Act before the Additional Tahsildar, Kavathe Makhanlal, and the case was decided in his favour with the purchase price of the disputed land being fixed. Thereafter, one of the heirs of the deceased landowner Narmadabai, named Laxman, preferred an appeal to Appellate Authority against the said order. After the matter was remanded back to the Additional Tehsildar , again an order affirming the previous position was passed in favour of the tenant under Section 32G. This time, the other heir of Late Smt. Narmadabai, namely Ramchandra, challenged the said order before the Sub-Divisional-Officer, Miraj, and he again by his order dated 31st of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....aid some installments towards the price of the land, the same cannot be considered as substantial compliance resulting in dispensation of the mandatory requirement of Section 32F. Therefore, considering the fact that the tenant had failed in his duty to issue a written notice to the owner of the land i.e. Respondent No. 2, as required under Section 32 F, he has lost his right to purchase the disputed land. The Writ Petition was therefore dismissed by the High Court. Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the High Court, this Special Leave Petition was filed which, on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned Counsel for the parties. 7. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and examined the impugned judgment of the High Court and also the orders passed by the Tahsildar , Appellate Court and the Revisional Court. We find that the High Court noticed the provision of Section 32F of the Act, in so far as it is relevant, which reads as follows: (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sections,- (a) where the landlord is a minor, or a widow, or a person subject to any mental or physical disability, the tenant ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....958 the share of such person in the joint family has been separated by metes and bounds and the Mamlatdar on inquiry, is satisfied that the share of such person in the land is separated having regard to the area, assessment, classification and value of the land, in the same proportion as the share of that person in the entire joint family property, and not in a larger proportion.] 9. We have examined the aforesaid provisions of the Act on which the High Court had placed strong reliance. In our view, the interpretation given by the High Court in the impugned judgment of the aforesaid provisions cannot be faulted with. It must be said that the High Court in its impugned judgment, correctly noticed that Sub-section (3) of Section 31 provides that the landlord under disability and intending to exercise a right under this chapter shall give a notice terminating the tenancy and if the landlord is a widow then the notice can be given by the successor-in-title of the widow within one year from the date on which her interest in the land ceases to exist. In the present case when the widow Narmadabai died, she ceased to have interest in the land and therefore the right of Ramchandra, as he....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... under Section 32F. The High Court further went on to observe: ...if Section 32F is held to be mandatory in its character then there has to be a strict compliance thereof. Secondly, that the tenant had initiated proceedings under Section 32G, that order was set aside by the SDO in the appeal and the matter was remanded for fresh enquiry in respect of the two points referred to above. Therefore, even if the tenant had initiated proceedings under Section 32G and even if he had paid some installments and the price of the land, the same cannot be considered as substantial compliance resulting in dispensation of the mandatory requirement of Section 32F.... 11. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and after examining the judgment under Appeal as well as the orders of the other authorities, and other materials on record including the depositions of the parties before them, we are of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed for the reasons set out hereinafter : 12. In our view, the High Court correctly pointed out that the provisions of Section 32F are independent in nature and are separate from the provisions under Section 31 of the Act. The e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... concerned Act, being a welfare legislation, enacted for the benefit of the tenants, should be construed in a liberal manner. The Court in its judgment stated in paragraph No. 4 that "We cannot accept this submission because language of the Sections 32F and 31 is quite clear and the period of one year will have to be counted in accordance with the said provisions and not from the date of the knowledge of the tenant. The provision of law being clear, we cannot in such a case, grant relief on the basis of equity." Again in Sudam Ganpat Kutwal v. Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar (2006)7SCC200 , relying on counsel for the parties in their submissions, this Court has clearly summarized the position of law. The paragraphs relevant to this case are 23 (c) to 23 (e) which have been laid down herein: 23 (c) A landlord has a right to give notice and make an application for possession after terminating the tenancy, if he wanted the land bonafide 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 31.03.1957. (d) A landlord wid....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ady, the further benefit of Section 31 is not available. Paragraph No. 23(f) at page No. 210 of the above-mentioned case and paragraph No. 27 of the same are of relevance to illustrate our point.: 23.(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 ceases to apply, Section 32F also will not apply and there is no need for the tenant to give any intimation under Section 32F. 27. Learned Counsel for the respondent relied on the decisions of this Court in Amrit Bhikaji Kale v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade, Anna Bhau Magdum v. Babasaheb Anadrao Desai, Appa Narsappa Magdum v. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar and Balchandra Anantrao Rakvi v. Ramchandra Rukaram to contend that the tenant has to issue a notice under Section 32F 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 th....