BAI JIVIBEN Vs. BOMBAY REVENUE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point involved in both these applications is whether a widow can terminate tie tenancy of her land under Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The Bombay Revenue Tribunal has taken the view that a widow has no such right and that the right to maintain such an application is available only to the successor -in -title of the widow under Sub -section (3) of Section 31. This view is in accordance with the decision of the Full Bench of the Revenue Tribunal in Parvati Bhau Patil v. Nagu Ragha Patil, decided on October 22, 1958.

(2.) THE question to be determined, therefore, is whether this view is correct Sub -section (1) of Section 31 provides that a landlord may, after giving notice and making an application for possession as provided in Sub -section (2), terminate the tenancy of any land, if the landlord bona fide requires the land for cultivating personally, or for any non -agricultural purpose. Sub -section (3) of Section 31; provides inter alia that where a landlord is a minor, or a widow, or a person subject to mental or physical disability or a serving member of the armed forces, then such notice may be given and an application for possession under Section 29 may be made, (i) by the minor within one year from the date on which he attains majority, (ii) by the successor -in -title of a widow within one year from the date on which her interest in the land ceases to exist, (iii) within one year from the date on which mental or physical disability ceases to exist; and (iv) within one year from the date on which a serving member of the armed forces ceases to be a serving member. There is a proviso to this sub -section with which we are not concerned. Sub -section (1), therefore, gives a right to every landlord to terminate the tenancy of his land, if he requires it bona fide for personal cultivation. There is nothing in this sub -section, which states that this right shall not be available to a widow or that it cannot be exercised by her in the manner provided. Clause (ii) in Sub -section (3), no doubt, gives a similar right to the successor -in - title of a widow, but it does not in any way restrict the right, which the widow herself possesses, of terminating the tenancy under Sub -section (1) of Section 31. The object of this clause is to protect the rights of the successor -in -title of the widow and to ensure that he does not suffer owing to negligence or inaction on the part of the widow. But there are no words either in this clause or in any other part of the section, which deprive a widow of the right conferred upon every landlord under Sub -section (1). It could never have been the intention of the Legislature that even, though a widow may require additional income from her land for her maintenance, she should not be able to obtain possession of the land during her lifetime and that this right should only be available to her successor -in -title.

(3.) THE intention of the Legislature in enacting Sub -section (3) of Section 31 was not to deprive widows, minors or other persons subject to disabilities of any rights which they possess in common with other landlords, but to confer certain additional rights on them. On the view taken by the Revenue Tribunal, a widow can never obtain possession of a land from a tenant, even though she requires additional income from it for her maintenance. We are certain that the Legislature could not have intended to cause such hardship, particularly in these days, when the general tendency is to enlarge and not restrict the rights off widows and other persons subject to disabilities.