VISHNU GANU PATIL Vs. MARUTI SANTU KURADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS case raises a short question as to the true interpretation of the proviso to Sub -section (3) of Section 82G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. The petitioner is admittedly tenant of Survey No. 149/3 situate at village Ispurli. The respondents are the landlords. As the petitioner was found to have been in possession of this land as tenant on April 1, 1957 the Agricultural Lands Tribunal at Karvir, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, proceeded to act under Section 32G of the Act, Individual notice was served on the tenant. He was called upon to appear before the said Tribunal on March 22, 1963. The tenant, however, remained absent. On May 7,1968 the Tribunal declared that the purchases by the tenant of this land had become ineffective in terms of Section 32G (3). This order was communicated to the tenant on June 6,1963 as required under the proviso. On July 4, 1963 the tenant made an application requesting the Tribunal to review the order dated May 7, 1963 well within sixty days as permitted by the said proviso. This application was rejected by the Tribunal on December 18,1963. The same is confirmed on August 20,1964 in appeal and on January 5,1966 in revision to the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. All the Courts below rejected the tenant's application on the ground that he did not satisfactorily explain his absence at the date of hearing by showing any reasons.

(2.) THE Tribunal also says that the tenant has not asked for the review of the earlier order dated May 7, 1968. This is clearly a case of misreading of the application which is not very happily drafted. The title of the application itself indicates that it was for review under Section 32G. The grievance made in the application in so many words is that the order in regard to Survey No. 149/1 has been wrongly made in his absence. A statement of the tenant also appears to have been recorded by the Tribunal in which he has prayed in so many words that the earlier order dated May 7,1963, should be reviewed The only real question that arises for consideration is whether such an application of the tenant for review within 60 days could have been rejected merely because he did not care to explain his absence, on the date of hearing.

(3.) MR . Gole, the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner contends that if the review of the order passed under Sub -section (S) is not made conditional on proof of sufficient cause or good and unavoidable reasons for his absence at the hearing, the reasons are not far to seek. Mr. Gole contends, Legislature was not content with merely conferring right of purchase but has created machinery under Section 32G for initiating proceedings suo motu to fix the price and work out the rights. These rights are, however, made defeasible on the tenant's absence at the hearing as obviously no Tribunal can afford to stay its hands without any reason indefinitely. The Legislature has deliberately, therefore, provided one more opportunity to the ignorant and illiterate tenants who failed to appear at the fixed date for some reason or the other, as such absence results not only in their losing the right of purchase but it is followed by loss of tenancy rights themselves in the land and possession under Section 32P. I find much substance in this contention. Requirement in the proviso of communicating the order passed under Sub -section (3) to the tenant and, absence of any requirement to explain the absence in his review application supports Mr. Gole's contention. In no other section of this Act, authorising the Mamlatdar or Tribunal to decide disputes there is any provision requiring the communication of the order to the tenant. Right to review provided also is not subjected in any manner to any limitation which normally are attached to the right of review. I thus find considerable force in the contention that right of getting the order of the Tribunal reviewed conferred under this proviso is unlimited in its extent and is not conditional on tenants proving any sufficient cause or good reasons for his absence at the date of hearing.