BHIMABAI TUKARAM BALKAWADE Vs. BHIKU PANDURANG BALKAWADE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD advocate Mr. Sali for the petitioner and advocate Mr. Katikar for the respondents.

(2.) THE M. R. T. , whose order is under challenge, has according to the petitioner, on the one hand accepted the status of the respondent as deemed purchaser from 1-4-1962, but on the other hand has also observed that since the landlady was widow on 1-4-1962, the right of the tenant got postponed. The petitioner landlady who was the widow at that time is still continuing to be so, and therefore, according to the petitioner, if the tenant respondent is the tenant of widow, then he cannot be said to be deemed purchaser on 1-4-1962 and if he is deemed purchaser on 1-4-1962 his right cannot be postponed because the petitioner is the widow. According to the petitioners advocate, the observations of the M. R. T. are contrary to the facts and to the legal position. If the right of the tenant to purchase the land is postponed, then it must get postponed till the widow is alive and no inquiry can be made by any of the Authority under the Tenancy Law regarding right of the respondent as tenant or deemed purchaser till the widow is alive.

(3.) THERE is no dispute that the petitioner was widow prior to 1-4-1962, and therefore, according to the Counsel for the petitioner her option to exercise the right under section 33-B as certificated landlady gets postponed till disability is continued. The Advocate for the petitioner relied upon a Division Bench Judgment of this Court reported in (The State of Bombay v. K. M. Nanavati), 1966 (LXII) Bom. L. R. 383 wherein the Division Bench has held that the right of the certificated landlord to apply under section 33-B of the Tenancy Act for possession of land from an excluded tenant does not lapse on his death and can be exercised within specified time by his successor in title. The Counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance upon sub-section (4) of section 33-B and sub-section (3) of section 33-C.