9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the tenant needed to issue a notice of intimation of purchase under Section 32F(1A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, to the successor-in-title of the widow landlord. 2. The applicability of Sections 31, 32, 32F, and 32G of the Act concerning the right of the tenant to purchase the land. 3. The effect of the widow landlord's exercise of her right to terminate the tenancy and take possession of part of the tenanted land. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Necessity of Notice of Intimation of Purchase: The primary dispute was whether the tenant needed to issue a notice of intimation of purchase under Section 32F(1A) to the successor-in-title of the widow landlord, Anusuyabai, who had already exercised her right to take possession of part of the tenanted land. The court held that since Anusuyabai had exercised her right under Section 31(1) of the Act and had taken possession of half of the land, Section 31(3) ceased to apply. Consequently, Section 32F also did not apply, and there was no need for the tenant to issue any notice of intimation under Section 32F(1A). 2. Applicability of Sections 31, 32, 32F, and 32G: The court provided a detailed interpretation of Sections 31, 32, 32F, and 32G. Section 31 allows a landlord to terminate tenancy for personal cultivation, and Section 31B ensures that the tenant retains at least half of the leased land. Section 32 deems the tenant to have purchased the land on the tillers' day (1st April 1957), subject to specific conditions. Section 32F deals with the right of the tenant to purchase land from a landlord who is a widow, minor, or person with a disability. The court clarified that when a widow landlord exercises her right to take possession under Section 31(1), the tenant's right to purchase the remaining land under Section 32F does not require an intimation notice. 3. Effect of Widow Landlord's Exercise of Right: The court noted that Anusuyabai had exercised her right to terminate the tenancy and had taken possession of half of the land for personal cultivation. This action barred her successor-in-title from seeking the remaining land for personal cultivation under Section 31C. Therefore, the tenant's right to purchase the remaining land under Section 32F(1) was not contingent on issuing a notice of intimation to the successor-in-title. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the order of the Bombay High Court and the authorities below, holding that the appellant-tenant continued to be the tenant of the land remaining with him after delivering half of the land to the landlord Anusuyabai. The appellant was entitled to restoration if dispossessed by the respondent from any part of his land in Gat No. 332. The court emphasized that the tenant's obligation to issue a notice of intimation under Section 32F(1A) did not arise in this case, as the widow landlord had already exercised her right to terminate the tenancy and take possession of part of the land.
|
