BHAULAL TIWARI MADHAVRAO PATIL Vs. PRABHAKAR BHALACHANDRA JAKATDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two petitions have been filed by the tenants of respondent No. 1 against a common order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal dismissing their application for revision against the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Chalisgaon, dismissing their appeals against the order passed by the Tahsildar under section 32-P of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter called as the "Tenancy Act") restoring possession to respondent No. 1

(2.) In both these cases the respondent No. 1 who is a landlord was a minor on 1st April, 1957 and he became major on 1st October, 1963. During his minority, his guardian created tenancies in favour of the petitioners in the year 1958-59. As these tenancies were created after the tillers day, they were governed by the provision of section 32-O of the Tenancy Act. On 13th February, 1964, i.e., one year after his attaining majority, the respondent No. 1-landlord served notices under section 31 of the Tenancy Act claiming that he required the lands for his personal cultivation. He then filed applications before the Tahsildar claiming possession under section 31 read with section 29 of the Tenancy Act, on 30th March, 1964. These applications were dismissed. The respondent No. 1 thereafter filed appeals before the Special Deputy Collector who remanded the matters for re-hearing. While these matter were pending before the Tahsildar after remand, the respondent No. 1 withdrew those application on 9th September, 1967.

(3.) In the meanwhile the respondent No. 1 filed applications under section 32-P of the Tenancy Act on 3rd May, 1967 claiming restoration of the lands on the ground that the applicant-tenants have failed to exercise their right to purchase within one year of the creation of the tenancy as required by section 32-O of the Tenancy Act. These application were resisted by the petitioners who contended that the landlord had already initiated proceedings for resumption of the lands for personal cultivation under section 31 of the Tenancy Act and those applications were resisted by them and, therefore, it was not necessary for them to intimate the landlord and the Tribunal as required by section 32-O of the Tenancy Act. They further submitted that on the withdrawal of his application under section 31 of the Tenancy Act by the landlord, these tenants have becomes owners of the lands. They claimed that because of these proceedings initiated by the landlord, they have not lost their right to purchase, much more so, because the landlord had not given them intimation of his attaining majority as required by section 32-F. The Tahsildar held that the tenancies were created after the tillers day and, therefore, the relations between the parties were governed only by section 32-O of the Tenancy Act which required that the tenant should give an intimation of his desire to excises the right of purchase under that section to the landlord within one year from the commencement of the tenancy and also to give intimation of his desire to do so to the Tribunal. He held that on failure of the tenant to do so he has lost the right to purchase the fields and ordered restoration of the lands to the respondent No. 1 landlord. The appeals filed by the tenants were dismissed by the Sub-divisional Officer, Jalgaon. Application for revision were also dismissed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal . It is against these orders that these two petitions have been filed.