9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether giving notice u/s 32F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, is mandatory for the tenant. 2. Whether the tenant lost the right to purchase the disputed land due to failure to give such notice. 3. Interpretation of Sections 31 and 32F of the Act. Summary: Issue 1: Mandatory Notice u/s 32F The High Court framed the issue of whether giving notice u/s 32F was mandated for the tenant and whether failure to give such notice resulted in the tenant losing the right to purchase the land. The High Court held that Section 32F is mandatory in nature and requires strict compliance. Despite the tenant initiating proceedings u/s 32G and paying some installments, this did not constitute substantial compliance to dispense with the mandatory requirement of Section 32F. The tenant's failure to issue a written notice to the landowner, as required u/s 32F, resulted in the loss of the right to purchase the disputed land. Issue 2: Loss of Right to Purchase The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on the ground that the Respondent (Ramchandra) was the sole owner of the disputed land, and the tenant had failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of serving a notice u/s 32F. The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court's interpretation, stating that the provisions of Section 32F are independent and separate from Section 31. The tenant was under a legal obligation to give notice of his intention to purchase the land as required u/s 32F. The tenant's failure to serve such notice resulted in the loss of the right to purchase the land. Issue 3: Interpretation of Sections 31 and 32F The High Court interpreted that Sub-section (2) of Section 32F is an exception to Sub-section (1) but limited to the sections referred to in it (Sections 32 to 32E and 32G to 32R). Section 31 is not included in Sub-section (2) of Section 32F, and the expression "Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sections" under Sub-section (1) of Section 32F indicates that the right given to the landlord under Section 31 is separate from the right given to the tenant under Section 32F. The Supreme Court upheld this interpretation, emphasizing that the tenant must comply with the mandatory requirement of serving a notice u/s 32F. Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the High Court that the tenant's failure to serve a notice u/s 32F resulted in the loss of the right to purchase the disputed land. The provisions of Section 32F are mandatory and require strict compliance, separate from the provisions of Section 31. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs.
|
