2019 (9) TMI 1484 - SC - Indian Laws

Right of a landlord to terminate a tenancy in order to cultivate the land personally - tenancy created after Tillers' Day - HELD THAT - The Scheme of the 1948 Act, and in particular, the 1956 Amendment, which introduced Tillers' Day, is that an absentee landlord's rights in the land must give way to a cultivating tenant. Statutorily, on Tillers' Day, the landlord is divested of title and the tenant is vested with title to agricultural land which he cultivates by dint of his own effort. It is only in three cases that such purchase becomes ineffective-if the tenant fails to appear within the time prescribed after notice is given to him, or appears and declines purchase, or if the tenant fails to pay the entire purchase price. The widow, the minor and the person subject to a disability are placed on the same pedestal, and throughout their widowhood, minority or period of disability are deemed to cultivate the land personally through their tenants-the Explanation-I to Section 2(6) makes this clear - in the vast majority of cases, the landlord is divested of his title on a fixed date i.e. 1st April, 1957. It is only in exceptional cases where the landlord is a widow, minor or a person subjected to disability that this right of the tenant is postponed. What is important to note is that it is to the knowledge of both landlord and tenant that the tenant becomes the owner statutorily on a fixed date i.e. 1st April, 1957. Even otherwise, on postponed dates that are mentioned Under Section 32, the tenant shall be deemed to have purchased the land on such postponed date under the first proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 32 when an application for possession made by the landlord Under Section 29 is finally rejected-a date that is to the knowledge of both landlord and tenant. Given the fact that the object of the 1956 Amendment, which is an agrarian reform legislation, and is to give the tiller of the soil statutory title to land which such tiller cultivates; and, given the fact that the literal interpretation of Section 32-F(1)(a) would be contrary to justice and reason and would lead to great hardship qua persons who are similarly circumstanced; as also to the absurdity of land going back to an absentee landlord when he has lost the right of personal cultivation, in the teeth of the object of the 1956 Amendment as mentioned hereinabove, we delete the words .. of the fact that he has attained majority.. . Without these words, therefore, the landlord belonging to all three categories has to send an intimation to the tenant, before the expiry of the period during which such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy Under Section 31. The judgment Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti Narayan Chavan, 2008 (9) TMI 1016 - SUPREME COURT followed the law laid down in Appa Narsappa 1999 (5) TMI 627 - SUPREME COURT and on facts held that the Appellant tenant had complete knowledge of the death of the widow in that case, as a result of which the Appellant's contention that he was confused as to who was the true owner was turned down. To the extent that this judgment follows the law laid down in Appa Narsappa, this judgment also does not lay down the law correctly and is overruled to this extent. The questions are now answered as follows (i) The object of the Amendment Act of 1969 is relevant and applicable in deciding the scope of the right to purchase by a tenant of a landlord who was a widow or suffering from mental or physical disability on Tillers' day. (ii) The successor-in-interest of a widow is obliged to send an intimation to the tenant of cessation of interest of the widow to enable the tenant to exercise his right of purchase. (iii) The decision in Appa Narsappa 1999 (5) TMI 627 - SUPREME COURT stands overruled. The decision in Sudam Ganpat 2006 (8) TMI 678 - SUPREME COURT stands distinguished as stated in paragraph 47 of the judgment. The decision in Tukaram Maruti 2008 (9) TMI 1016 - SUPREME COURT , to the extent that it follows the law laid down in Appa Narsappa (supra), stands overruled. The tenant's intimation of purchase of 2008 will now be taken on record by the authorities under the Act, who may now proceed under the Act to determine purchase price and its payment consequent upon which the postponed right of the tenant in this case to own the land will then come into being upon the statutory conditions being met - appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Suspension of deemed purchase due to landlord's disability.
2. Obligation of successor-in-interest of a widow to notify tenants.
3. Interpretation of Section 32-F of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
4. Reconsideration of previous judgments.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Suspension of Deemed Purchase Due to Landlord's Disability:
The court examined whether the deemed purchase of land by tenants under the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, is suspended if the landlord suffers from a disability (minority, widowhood, or mental/physical disability) on Tillers' Day (1-4-1957). It was established that the deemed purchase is indeed suspended in such cases.

2. Obligation of Successor-in-Interest of a Widow to Notify Tenants:
The court addressed whether the successor-in-interest of a widow is required to notify tenants of the cessation of the widow's interest to enable the tenant to exercise their right of purchase. The court concluded that the successor-in-interest must send an intimation to the tenant regarding the cessation of the widow's interest, aligning with the legislative intent to facilitate tenants' rights of purchase.

3. Interpretation of Section 32-F of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948:
The court interpreted Section 32-F, which provides tenants the right to purchase land from landlords who are minors, widows, or persons with disabilities. The court highlighted that the legislative object is to facilitate tenants' rights of purchase, and tenants must be aware of the cessation of the landlord's disability to exercise this right meaningfully. The court emphasized that the period prescribed for exercising the right to purchase is not a limitation period but a reasonable period that commences from the tenant's knowledge of the cessation of disability.

4. Reconsideration of Previous Judgments:
The court reconsidered and overruled the judgments in Appa Narsappa Magdum v. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar (1999) 4 SCC 443, Sudam Ganpat Kutwal v. Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar (2006) 7 SCC 200, and Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti Narayan Chavan (2008) 9 SCC 358. The court found that these judgments did not consider the legislative amendments and the intent behind them, leading to an interpretation that was contrary to the legislative objective of agrarian reform.

Conclusion:
The court allowed the appeals and set aside the High Court's judgment dated 1st August 2014. The tenant's intimation of purchase from 2008 was taken on record, and the authorities were directed to proceed under the Act to determine the purchase price and its payment, thereby enabling the tenant's postponed right to own the land upon meeting the statutory conditions. The appeals were disposed of accordingly.