CHAND LADLESAHEB SHAIKH Vs. DATTATRAYA SHANKAR MALKHARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the above Special Civil Application was the tenant of the agricultural lands bearing S. Nos. 77 and 79 of village, Hanamgaon, Taluka South Sholapur, District Sholapur. These lands were given to one Smt. Vatsalabai widow of Narhar for her maintenance. She leased the lands to the tenant in the year 1949 -60. Vatsalabai died on December 9, 1962. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2, who are successors -in -title of Vatsalabai, filed an application under Sec. 84 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, in the Court of the Assistant Collector, for summary eviction of the tenant. The application of the respondents was dismissed. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 filed a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. The Revenue Tribunal dismissed the said revision application on September 29, 1966. On December 14, 1966, the petitioner sent a notice to respondents Nos. 1 and 2 through his advocate, expressing his willingness to purchase the land bearing S. No. 77. The petitioner is an illiterate person and there is no doubt that the advocate for the petitioner made an unfortunate mistake in not including the other Serial No. 79. However, the fact remains that he gave this intimation only in respect of S No. 77 and also in respect of S. No. 79.

(2.) In proceedings under Sec. 32C read with Sec. 32F, the tenant stated that the was a lawful tenant of both the lands and was cultivating the lands for more than 20/25 years and hence he wanted to purchase the lands under Sec. 32F. The landlords contended that the tenant had lost his right to purchase the lands as he failed to give intimation under Sec. 32F (1A) within the period of one year from the date of death of Vatsalabai, before December 9, 1964, as required under Sec. 32F (1A). The Additional Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, South Sholapur, declared the sale to be ineffective. The said order was confirmed by the Collector of Sholapur on May 11, 1968 and by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on July 7, 1969. The concurrent finding of the three authorities is challenged in the above petition.

(3.) The only question that arises in this petition is as to whether the tenant had given intimation as required by Sec. 32F (1A). The three tenancy authorities have come to the conclusion that the notice given by the tenant on December 14, 1966, did not comply with the said provisions. Mr. Hussein, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied on an unreported judgment of Chandrachud, J. in Dattatraya Balkrishna Jadhav v/s. Smt. Nivabai Pandurang Shinde (1966) Special Civil Application No. 636 of 1966, decided by Chandrachud J, on December 20, 1966 (Unrep.) and my decision in Bhila Keshav Patil v/s. Ganpati Chunilal Kabre (1972) Special Civil Application No. 2672 of 1971, decided by Vaidya J., on April 28, 1972 (Unrep.), and contended that the notice given by the tenant substantially complied with the provisions of Sec. 32F (1A). He also urged that S. No. 79 is not mentioned in the said notice and the notice must be read in the context of the evidence given by the illiterate petitioner, who always wanted to exercise his right of purchase in respect of both the survey numbers.