RAMBHAI LALLUBHAI PATEL Vs. BAI KAMLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application for amendment of the cause title is allowed.

(2.) The appellant in this case is admittedly a tenant on the suit land. His right to purchase the suit land under Section 326 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") was deferred since on the relevant date, the landlady was a widow. She died in 1961. Although it is the case of the appellant-tenant that within the requisite time, thereafter, he made an application to initiate the proceedings under Section 326 of the Act, this claim is disputed on behalf of the respondent-landlady. It is not necessary to refer to this controversy since, as is pointed out hereafter, in view of the provisions of Section 32-F (1-A) such an application was not necessary to be made by the tenant. It appears that one Kalidas (Respondent 4 on behalf of the minor Ashok Kumar, a grandson of the deceased landlady through one of her three daughters, Savita, set up a will dated 6/8/1966 whereunder the suit lands were alleged to have been bequeathed to him. He also claimed to have obtained Letters of Administration of the estate of the widow including the suit land. There may be some truth again in the contention of the tenant that although he made an application under Section 32-G of the Act the same was not considered because of the will and the Letters of Administration which were produced on behalf of Respondent 4. Whatever that may be, it appears that thereafter on 24/6/1969, Ashok attained majority and terminated the tenancy of the appellant and started proceedings for recovery of the suit land under Section 29 (2) of the Act.

(3.) In the meanwhile, the tenant made yet another attempt for the purchase of the land under Section 32-G which has given rise to the present proceedings. This application was dismissed by the Tenancy Mamlatdar on 21/2/1970 on the ground that the date of the statutory purchase was postponed till 24/6/1970, i. e. , till after the expiry of one year after the minor Ashok Kumar attained majority. The tenant challenged this decision before the Deputy Collector in appeal. The Deputy Collector confirmed the decision of the Mamlatdar on the ground that the Tenancy courts could not go into the question of the validity of the Letters of Administration. The tribunal rejected the revision of the tenant which decision was confirmed by the High court in the writ petition Filed by him under Article 227 of the Constitution.