SHRIKRISHNA Vs. SHRIPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An interesting question of law - formulated below - under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act (hereinafter the Tenancy Act) arises for determination in this writ petition.

(2.) One Jiwaji was the original landlord of the suit land and the petitioners his tenants. The suit land as also the relationship between the parties was at all relevant times governed by the Tenancy Act. As, on the Tiller's Day 1st April 1957, the petitioners were in personal cultivation of the suit land, proceedings were held under S. 32G of the Tenancy Act for fixation of purchase price. The tenants expressed willingness to purchase. However, as the landlord was a physically disabled person, the proceedings were dropped because under S.32F(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act, in the case inter alia of a landlord subject to physical disability the tenants' right of purchase stood postponed This was in June 1959. Subsequently in February 1962, proceedings under S.32G were again held but despite tenants' willingness to purchase, the said proceedings had to be again dropped as the landlord continued to be subject to physical disability. Thereafter, however, the physically disabled landlord died on 25th August 1962 while still under disability. After his demise, proceedings (third in the series) under S.32G of the Tenancy Act were again held in 1964. The tenants once again expressed their willingness to purchase. The record, however, does not indicate as to what ultimately happened to these proceedings. Learned Advocates on either side were also unable to throw light thereon. Consistent position, however, has been that the tenants all throughout have been in personal cultivation of the suit land and all along willing to purchase the same. Proceedings (fourth in the series) under section 32G of the Tenancy Act were held again in 1974. The tenants once again expressed their willingness to purchase. The Tenancy Authority, however, held that though the tenants were willing to purchase the suit land, they had lost their right to do so in view of absence of intimation under section 32F of the Tenancy Act to the heirs of the deceased disabled landlord Jiwaji. The purchase was, therefore, declared ineffective. Tenants' appeal therefrom failed. Their further revision to the Revenue Tribunal was also invain. Hence this petition.

(3.) Mr. V.V. Divekar, learned Counsel for the petitioners-tenants, submitted that there was no question here of giving intimation to the heirs of the landlord Jiwaji under S.32F of the Tenancy Act. Section 32F has no application to such a case and cannot be invoked to defeat the tenants' right of purchase. In law, the tenants here became - deemed purchasers - statutory and automatic - on 25th August 1962 when the disabled landlord died while still under disability. The impugned declaration of ineffective purchase was, therefore, according to him, unsustainable. Mr. G. R. Rege, learned Counsel for the heirs of the landlord, contended on the other hand that notwithstanding the demise of the disabled landlord, S.32F would apply to this case and can be invoked by his heirs. This provision makes no distinction between a disabled landlord who survives his disability and a disabled landlord who dies while under disability. The declaration of ineffective purchase was, therefore, according to him, legal and valid.