Holding

Section 50 is a complete code and its scheme does not permit the postponement of the tenant’s purchase right under Section 41(2); the one‑year period is mandatory.

Summary

The case concerned a dispute over land held by a tenant who claimed a right to purchase the land under Section 50 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, while the landlord‑widows argued that the purchase right was postponed under Section 41(2). The Supreme Court examined whether the postponement provision of Section 41(2) could be applied mutatis mutandis to the purchase right created by Section 50. It held that Section 50 is a self‑contained code whose scheme provides a fixed one‑year period for purchase and does not incorporate the exception for widows found in Section 41(2). Consequently, the tenant could not claim an extension of time, and the respondents were entitled to possession. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether Section 41(2) of the Bombay Tenancy Act, which postpones a tenant's purchase right when the landlord is a widow, applies to purchases under Section 50.
Whether the one‑year period for exercising the purchase right under Section 50 can be extended by invoking Section 41(2).
Whether Section 50 constitutes a complete code that excludes the exception provided in Section 41(2).
Whether the long‑standing interpretation of Section 50 by the Bombay High Court should be disturbed.
Whether the appellant was a tenant liable to purchase the land.

Subjects

tenancyright of purchaseSection 50Section 41mutatis mutandiswidow landlordstatutory interpretationstare decisis

Judgment

JANBA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. A
v.
SMT. GOPIKABAI

APRIL 6, 2000

[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND M.B. SHAH, JJ.] B

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958-
Sections 50( I), 41 (2 )-Applicability of-Jn case of purchase under Section
SO-Sections 41 to 44 to apply mutatis mutandis to 'such purchase' which the
tenant is entitled to make under section 41-Sub-section (2) of Section 41 C
cannot be made applicable in case of purchase under Section Section 50, as
it does not perlain to the purchase but it is with regard to the postponement
of 'such purchase' -Sections 41 to 44.

Section 50( 1)-Interpretation of-Consistently given one meaning by
High Courls-Held, would not be proper to interpret the provision differently D
after about three decades.

Interpretation ofStatutes-Local Statutes-Interpretation of-Vi.ew taken
by the High Courl over a number of years should nonnally be adhered to and
not disturbed.
E
Widow (respondent) of one 'L', applied to Tehsildar for declaration
that the appellant was in illegal possession of the land in dispute, as he was
not the tenant of the same and, they alternatively asked for possession of
the land under Section 50 of Tenancy Act, as the tenant had not exercised
the right of purchase within one year from the commencement of the said F
provision. Appellant contended that as the respondents being widows his
right to purchase the land was postponed under Section 41(2) of the Act
till their disability ceased, then the matter reached the High Court, the
same was remanded back to Tehsildar. Tehsildar rejected the application
of the Respondents, on the ground that the Appellant was not entitled to
G
purchase the land till after the expiry of two years from the cessation of
the interest of the widow.

The Appellate Authority, allowed the appeal of the respondents and
directed them to seek appropriate remedy for restoration of possession,
bl)\ding lhat the appellant had never been a tenant. H
1035
1036 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000) 2 S.C.R
A Appellants filed revision before Tribunal, which was allowed restor-
ing the order of Tehsildar holding that the respondents being widows, the
question of extension of time and deemed surrender did not arise at all.

Appeal was preferred before High Court. Single Judge held that the
claim for declaration that the appellant was not a tenant was barred by
B limitation, and that the tenancy was created after 1.4.1963 and that in the
facts of the case, Section 50 would be applicable. On the question whether
section 41(2) of the Act applied to such tenancies, he referred the matter to
the Division Bench, which held that Section 50 is a complete Code in itself
and that the provisions of Section 41(2) would.not be applicable to such
c tenancies. The right to purchase having not been exercised by the appel-
lant within one year from the date of tenancy, the respondent was entitled
to delivery of possession. Appeal was preferred by the appellants to this
Court.

Dismissing the appeal, this Court
D
HELD: 1.1. Section 50 specifically provides that every tenant hold-
ing land under such tenancy i.e. tenancy created or restored after 1.4.1963,
and cultivating it personally shall be entitled to purchase within one year
from the commencement or as the case may be, the restoration of the
tenancy so much of such land as he may be entitled to purchase under
E Section 41. That period of one year cannot be changed by holding that
sub-section (2) would be applicable and 'such purchase' is not be post-
poned for an indefinite period i.e. after two years from the date of cessa-
tion of disability of the landlord. If this contention is accepted, 'such
purchase' would be postponed for a period of two years after happening
F of uncertain eventuaUty, namely, minor landlord becoming major, widow
ceasing to be owner or in case of disabled person, till cessation of mental
or physical disability. That is neither the intention of the legislature nor it
is provided. What is provided for is - to "such purchase" Sections 41 to 44
mutatis mutandis shall apply. [1049-B-D]

G 1.2. The scheme of Section 50 is different from Section 41. Section 41
talks of purchase of the land by a tenant and carves out an exception as
provided in sub-section (2) in favour of landlord of specified categories
(minor, widow or person subject to physical disability). As against this, ....
under Section 50 no such exception is carved out in favour of landlord or
H tenant who is a minor, a widow or a person subject to any physical or
\

JANBA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. SMT. GOPIKABAI 1037

mental disability. Prescribed time limit for exercise of such option to A
purchase the land is only one year. No provision is made for postponing
such right to purchase, if landlord or tenant is minor, widow or disabled
person. [1047-B-C]

1.3. Scheme of Section 50 is to see that either the tenant purchases
the land or restores back the possession of the land to the landlord. It B
provides that in case where tenancy is created or restored after 1.4.1963,
the tenant is entitled to purchase the land cultivated by him to the extent
mentioned in Section 42 within one year from the date of commencement
of the tenancy. If there is failure to exercise such right, consequences
provided in Section 43(14A) would follow. [1048-A-B] c
1.4. Suh-section (2) cannot be made applicable in case of purchase
under Section 50, as it does not pertain to the purchase but it is with regard
to postponement of"such purchase". Section 50 only provides that tenant
would be entitled to purchase so much of such land as he may be entitled to
purchase under Section 41 and to "such purchase" the provisions of Sec- D
tions 41 to 44 mutatis mutandis would apply. The concept of mutatis mutandis
as understood in context of Section 50 would be - Sections 41 to 44 would be
applicable with necessary changes in the points of detail to "such pur-
chase", that is to say, thereafter, those parts of Section which are pertaining
to "such purchase" are made applicable but there is no question of postpon- E
ing "such purchase" as provided under Section 41(2). [1048-D-E]

2.1. Section 50 of the Tenancy Act has been interpreted by the High
Court consistently and it would not be proper to disturb the course of
decisions by interpreting that provision differently after about three <!ec-
ades. F

Govinda v. Udhao and Others, (1972) Mh. L.J. 588 and Vikram
Yeshwanta and Others v. Eknath Trimabak Gudekar and Others, (1977)
Mh.L.J. 520, relied on.
G
2.2 In the matter of local statute, the view taken by the High Court
over a number of years should normally be adhered to and not disturbed.

Raj Narain Pandey and Others v. Sant Prasad Tewari and Others,
[1973] 2 SCC 35 and Darshan Singh Etc. v. Ram Pal Singh and AnotherBtc.,
[19921 Suppl. 1 SCC 191, relied on. H
1038 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 817of1989.

From the Judgment and Order dated 5.7.85 of the Bombay High Court
-
in S.C.A. No. 792 of 1975.

Uday U. Lalit and A.G. Ratnaparkhi for the Appellants.
B
Dr. N.M. Ghatate and S.V. Deshpande for the Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

SHAH, J. The question involved in this appeal is with regard to the
interpretation of Section 50(1) of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands
c (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 (hereinafter referred to as "the Tenancy Act")
which inter alia provides that where tenancy is created after 01.4.1963, every
tenant holding land under such tenancy and cultivating it personally shall be
entitled to purchase during 'One year from the commencement of the tenancy
so much of such land as he may be entitled to purchase under Section 41 and
D the provisions of Sections 41 to 44 shall mutatis-mutandis apply to such
purchase. For this purpose, as provided under Section 43 he is required to
make an offer to the landlord stating the price at which he is ready to purchase
the land and such price shall not exceed 12 times the rent payable by him. It
is the contention of the appellant-tenant that as the respondents-landladies
E were widows, his right to purchase the land is postponed under Section 41(2)
of the Tenancy Act till their disability ceases. As against this, the High Court
of Bombay by impugned judgment dated 05.7.1985 in Special Civil Applica-
tion No.792/1975 held that Section 41(2) would not be applicable in case of
purchase specified under Section 50. That judgment and order is challenged
by filing this appeal.
F
Before dealing with the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
appellant it is to be stated that during the proceedings, respondent No. I, Smt.
Radhikabai widow of Laxmanrao Wanjari had expired. Civil Misc. Petition
No.19711 of 1986 was filed for deletion of her name stating that Radhikabai
had expired leaving behind no person as her legal heir. Her name was deleted
G
at the risk of the appellant vide Court's order dated 15.3.1999 made in the said
CMP.

For deciding the question involved, we would first mention a few facts
of the case. On 16.1.1967 respondents who were widows of one Laxmanrao
H Wanjari applied to the Tehsildar, Kelapur for a declaration that the appellant
JANBA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. SMT. GOPIKABAI [SHAH, J.] 1039

- herein was not a tenant of the land bearing Survey Nos.1/1, 2 acres 28 gunthas
and 3/lA, 6 acres 39 gunthas of village Hirapur and his possession of the land
was illegal and in the alternative for possession under Section 50 of the
Tenancy Act as the tenant had not exercised his right of purchase within one
A

year from the commencement of the said provision. The appellant contended
that the respondents being widows, his right to purchase stood postponed for
B
two years after the cessation of interest of the respondents in view of Section
41(2) of the Tenancy Act. The matter was considered by various authorities
and ultimately reached the High Court in Special Civil Application No. 505
of 1969. The High Court remanded the matter to the Tehsildar for fresh
decision. After remand the Tehsildar vide order dated 22.2.1972 held that the
appellant was tenant since 1964-65 and that he was not entitled to purchase c
the said land till after the expiry of two years from the cessation of interest
of the widow, hence the application was rejected. In appeal, the Appellate
Authority vide its order dated 31.12.1973 held that the appellant had never
been a tenant and directed the respondents to seek appropriate remedy for
restoration of possession. The Tribunal by order dated 31.12.1974 allowed the D
revision by restoring the order passed by the Tehsildar and holding that the
respondents being widows, the question of extension of time and deemed
surrender did not arise at all. The Tribunal further held that since the
respondents had not preferred application within six months of the accrual of
the cause of action, the application was time barred. Against the said order,
Special Civil Application No.792of1975 was filed before the High Court. In E
the High Court, it was the contention of the appellant that Section 41(2) would
be applicable in respect of tenancies to which Section 50 of the Tenancy Act
applied. Hence, as the landladies were widows, the right to purchase would
stand postponed for two years after the cessation of interest of the widows. On
the other hand, counsel for the respondents submitted that Section 50 of the F
Act was a complete Code in itself and the provisions of section 41(2)
regarding postponement of the right to purchase would not apply. The learned
Single Judge of the High Court held that the claim for declaration that the
appellant was not a tenant was barred by limitation and decided the matter by
holding that the tenancy was created after 1.4.1963. The learned Single Judge
also held that in the facts of the case, Section 50 would be applicable. On the G
question whether Section 41(2) of the Act applied to such tenancies, the
learned Judge referred the matter to the Division Bench of the High Court. The
Division Bench by the impugned order dated 5.7.1985 held that Section 50 is
a complete Code in itself and that the provisions of Section 41(2) would not
be applicable to such tenancies. The Court held that the right to purchase H
1040 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A having not been exercised by the appellant within one year from the date of
tenancy, the respondents were entitled to delivery of possession.

For proper understanding of scheme of Section 50 and its interpretation,
--
it is necessary to refer to relevant parts of Sections 41, 42, 43, 46, 49A and
50 of the Tenancy Act.
B
"Section 41. Right of tenant to purchase land. (1) Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary in any law, usage or contract but subject to
the provisions of Sections 42 to 44 (both inclusive) a tenant other than
--
an occupancy tenant shall, in the case of land held by him as a tenant,
be entitled to purchase from the landlord the land held by him as a
c tenant and cultivated by him personally.

(2) Where the landlord is of the following category, namely: _

(a) a minor,

D (b) a widow,

(c) ...

(d) a person subject to any physical or mental disability, such tenant
shall be entitled to purchase the landlord's interest under this section
E <'\fter the expiry of two years from the date on which-

(i) the landlord of category (a) attains majority,

(ii) ...

F (iii) the landlord of category (d) ceases to be subject to such
disability, and

(iv) the interest of the landlord of category (b) in the land ceases to
exist:

Section 42. Extent of land which tenant may purchase under section
G
41. -- The right of a tenant under section 41 to purchase from his
landlord the land held by him as a tenant shall be subject to the
following conditions, namely:_

(a) if the tenant does not hold any cultivate personally any land,
H as a tenure-holder the purchase of the land by him shall be
JANBA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. SMT. GOPIKABAI [SHAH, J.] 1041

limited to the extent of three family holdings; A

(b) if the tenant holds any cultivates personally any land as a
tenure-holder the purchase of the land by him shall be limited
to such area as will be sufficient to make up the area of the land
held by him as a tenure-holder to the extent of three family
holdings. B

Section 43 provides for the procedure for the tenant to make an offer,
determination of purchase price, mode of payment, etc ...

Section 43(1) to (14) ...
c
Section 43(14-A) - If a tenant fails to exercise his right of purchase
under Section 41 in respect of any land or the purchase of any land
becomes ineffective, the land shall be deemed to have been surren-
dered to the landlord, and thereupon the provisions of sub-sections
(1) and (2) of Section 21 and Chapter VII shall apply to such land
as if the land was surrendered by the tenant under section 20.
D

Section 44 deals with the amount of purchase price to be applied

-
towards the satisfaction of debts.

Section 46. Transfer of ownership of land to tenants from specified
date. (1) Notwithstanding anything in this Chapter or any law for the E
time being in force or any custom, usage, decree, contract or grant
to the contrary, with effect on and from the first day of April, 1961,
•• the ownership of all lands held by tenants which they are entitled to
purchase from their landlords under any of the provisions of this
Chapter shall stand transferred to and vest in, such tenants and from F
such date such tenants shall be deemed to be the full owners of such
lands:

Provided that if on such date any such tenant is of the following
.. category, namely:-
G
(a) a minor,
,..., (b) a widow,
(c) a serving member of the anned forces, or
(d) a person subject to any physical or mental disability,

the ownership of the land shall stand transferred- H
1042 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A . (i) to the tenant on the expiry of one year from the date on which
the tenant of category (a) attains majority, the tenant of category (c)
ceases to serve in such force, the tenant of category (d) ceases to be
subject to such disability; and

(ii) in the case of a widow to her successor-in-title on the expiry
B of one year from the date on which the widow's interest in the land
ceases to exist:

Provided further that where in respect of any such land, any
proceeding under sections 19,20, 21, 36 or 38 is pending on the date
specified in sub-section (1) the transfer of ownership of such land
c shall take effect on the date on which such proceeding is finally
decided and the tenant retains possession of the land in accordance
with the decision in such proceeding.

Section 49(A). Ownership of certain lands to stand transferred to
D tenants on !st day of April, 1963. (1) Notwithstanding anything
contained in section 41or 46, or any custom, usage, decree, contract
or grant to the contrary but subject to the provisions of this section,
on and from the 1st day of April, 1963 the ownership of all land held
by a tenant (being land which is not transferred to the tenant under
section 46 or which is not purchased by him under Section 41 or 50)
E shall stand transferred to and vest in such tenant who shall, from the
date aforesaid, be deemed to be the full owner of such land, if such
lands is cultivated by him personally, and

(i) the landlord has not given notice of the termination of tenancy
in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (1) of section 38 or
F
section 39 or sub-section (2) of section 39A; or

(ii) the landlord has given such notice but bas not made an
application thereafter under section 36 for possession as required by
those sections; or
G
(iii) the landlord (being a landlord not belonging to any of the
categories specified in sub-section (2) of section 38 has not terminated
the tenancy on any of the grounds specified in section 19; or has so
terminated the tenancy but has not applied to the Tehsildar on or
before the 31st day of March, 1963 under section 36 for possession
H of the land:
JANBA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. SMT. GOPIKABAI [SHAH, J.] 1043
Provided that, where the landlord has made such application for A
possession then the tenant shall, or the date on which the application
is finally decided be deemed to be the full owner of the land which
he is entitled to retain in possession after such decision."

Section 50. Rights o.f tenants holding land under tenancy restored or
created after specified date to purchase land. (1) Where a tenancy is B
restored under Sections 7, 10, 21, 52 or 128A or is created by a
landlord not being a landlord within the meaning of Chapter III-A in
any area after the date specified in sub-section (1) of section 49A,
every tenant holding land under such tenancy and cultivating it
personally shall be entitled to purchase within one year from tl1e c
commencement or as the case may be, the restoration of the tenancy
so much of such land as he may be entitled to purchase under section
41and the provisions of sections 41 to 44 (both inclusive) shall
mutatis mutandis apply to such purchase."

At this stage we would mention that Section 50 of the Tenancy Act as D
applicable to Vidarbha region is consistently interpreted by the High Court
since years as stated in the impugned judgment. The learned Single Judge of
the Bombay High Court in Govinda v. Udhao and Others, (1972) l\1h.L.J. 588
considered the scheme of Sections 41 to 50 and pointed out that Section
50 as it stood prior to its amendment as enacted in December 1958 was
E
as under: -

"50. Right of tenant holding land under tenancy created after
specified date to purchase land: - In the case of a tenancy created in
any area after the date specified in sub-section (1) of section 46, every
tenant holding land under such tenancy and cultivating it personally p
shall be entitled to purchase within one year from the commencement
of the tenancy so much of such land as he may be entitled to purchase
under section 41 and the provisions of sections 41 to 44 (both
inclusive) shall mutatis mutandis apply to such purchase."

The Court observed that in its original form the tenancies which were G
covered by section 50 were those which were created after 1.4.1961 because
that was the date on which there was a statutory transfer of ownership in
favour of certain tenants who were entitled to purchase land under section 41
of the Tenancy Act. It may be stated that section 43 did not contain sub-
section (14A) initially and the concept of a deemed surrender of land which H
1044 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R. .
A is contained in Section 43(14A) did not become relevant prior to 12.2.1962
when sub-section (14A) was for the first time put on the Statute book by Act
No. 2 of 1962. Section 50 was first amended by Maharashtra Act 5 of 1961
and sub-section (2) was added to that section. Section 50 was then again .
amended by Act No. 2 of 1962 and it is as a result of this amendment that
the section is in its present form, except a small part of it which is the result
B
of an amendment by Maharashtra Act No. 39 of 1964. The Court also
considered the amendment in Section 50 and observed: -

"The material amendment in this section was obviously the result
of the enactment of section 49-A in the Tenancy Act by Maharashtra
c Act No. 2 of 1962. By enactment of section 49- A the legislature
provided for a statutory transfer of ownership of all land held by a
tenant being land which is not transferred to the tenant under section
46 or which was not purchased by him under section 41 or section
50 with effect from 1.4.1963, if such land was cultivated personally
by the tenant and if certain conditions which are set out in section 49-
D A were satisfied. Section 49-A operated notwithstanding anything
contained in Section 41 or 46, or any custom, usage, decree, contract
or grant to the contrary. Having provided for a statutory transfer of
ownership with effect from 1.4.1963 in respect of lands held by a
tenant on that day section 50 was made applicable in respect of
E tenancies created after 1.4.1963. Section 50 did not provide only for
tenancies which were created after 1.4.1963 but it also dealt with
tenancies which were restored either under section 7 or 10 or 52 or
28 or 128-A of the Tenancy Act. This section provided that every
tenant holding land under such tenancy, that is to say, a tenancy which
was restored under any one of the sections referred to in that section,
F or under a tenancy created after 1.4.1963, by a landlord not being a
landlord within the meaning of Chapter III-A of the Tenancy Act, if
he was cultivating the land held by him under such tenancy personally
he shall be entitled to purchase that land within one year from the
commencement or fmm the restoration of the tenancy as the case may
G be."

After considering the aforesaid scheme with regard to Section 50, the
Court held that: -

"Section 50 refers to section 41 twice. The first reference has
---
H been made in order to indicate the extent of the land which the
-
JANBA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. SMT. GOPIKABAI [SHAH, J.] 1045

tenant is entitled to purchase. under section 50 of the Tenancy Act. A
The material words of the section minus all the adjectival clauses
would be "every tenant holding land under such tenancy and
cultivating it personally shall be entitled to purchase ... so much of
such land as he may be entitled to purchase under section 41..." The
words "such land" refers to the land which he holds under tenancy
B
and which he cultivates personally. When it is to be decided whether
the tenant is entitled to purchase the entire land which he holds
under tenancy and which he cultivates personally, the reference to
section 41 becomes material. The section says that the tenant is
entitled to purchase only so much land as he may be entitled to
purchase under section 41. Section 41 deals with the right of a tenant C
to purchase land and this right is subject to the provisions of section
42 in which the extent of the land which the tenant may purchase
under section 41 is set out. The words "which the tenant may be
entitled to purchase under section 41" has obvious reference to the
restriction in section 42. The reference to section 41 is for a specific D
purpose, namely, to find out the extent of land which the tenant is
entitled to purchase."

Thereafter the Court refeITed to Section 42 and relevant par! of Section
43, particularly, (14-A) and observed:-
E
"This sub-section set out the consequences of the tenant failing
to exercis~ the right of purchase under section 41, which, in view of
the provisions of section 50, must also follow where a tenant fails to
exercise his right of purchase under section 50 and it also provides
....
for the consequences of the purchase of any land becoming ineffec-
tive. The consequences are that the land shall be deemed to have been F
surrendered to the landlord and thereupon the provisions of sub-
sections (1) and (2) of section 21 shall apply to such land as if the
land was surrendered by the tenant under section 20. The conse-
quence which is set out in this section is that the land is deemed to
have been surrendered to the landlord and after such surrender an G
enquiry is required to be made having regard to the provisions of
section 21 (1) and (2) about tlie extent of the land which the landlord
'is entitled to retain with him."

The Court finally held that the consequences contemplated by section
43(14-A) of the Tenancy Act would arise only if the tenant fails to exercise H
1046 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A his right to purchase within one ye<!-f.

The aforesaid judgment was again referred for re-consideration by

B
Division Bench in Vikram Yeshwanta and Others v. Eknath Trimbak Gadekar
and Others, (1977) Mh. L.J. 520. The Division Bench held that they were in
agreement with the view taken by the leamed Single Judge in the aforesaid
case. The Division Bench reiterated that on a proper reading of sections 50
-
and 43(14-A) of the Tenancy Act, the right to obtain possession will be
deemed to have accrued to the landlord as soon as there is failure on the part
of the tenant to purchase the land within one year as contemplated by section
20. The aforesaid_judgments are followed in the impugned judgment and order
C passed by the Division Bench. Section 50 of the Tenancy Act has been
interpreted in the manner stated above by the High Court consistently and it
would not be proper to disturb the course of decisions by interpreting that
. -
provision differently after about three decades. This Court in Rajnarain
Pandey and Others v. Sant Prasad Tewari and Others, [1973] 2 SCC 35 held
that in the matter of local statute, the view taken by the High Court over a
D number of years should normally be adhered to and not disturbed. The Court
further observed: -

"A different view would not only introduce an element of uncertainty
and confusion, it would also have the effect of unsettling transactions which
might have been entered into on the faith of those decisions. The doctrine of
E
stare decisis can be aptly invoked in such a situation. As observed by Lord
Evershed M.R. in the case of Brownsea Haven Properties v. Poole C01pn.,
(1958] Ch 574 (CA) : (1958) 1 All ER 205, there is well-established authority

F
for the view that a decision of long-standing on the basis of which many
persons will in the course of time have arranged their affairs should not lightly
be disturbed by a superior court not strictly bound itself by the decision."
-
The aforesaid observations are referred to and relied upon in Darshan
Singh etc. v. Ram Pal Singh and Another etc., [1992] Suppl. 1 SCC 191, para
33.

G Further, considering the reasons recorded in Govind's case (supra), we
do not think that the impugned order calls for any interference. Section 50,
as quoted above, in terms provides that (i) in case where tenancy is restored
or is created by a landlord not being a landlord within the meaning of
Chapter III-A i.e. landlords who are or have been members of the armed
H forces, tenant would be entitled to purchase within one year from the
JANBA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. SMT. GOPIKABAI [SHAH, J.] 1047

commencement or restoration of the tenancy; (ii) the tenant would be entitled A
to purchase so much of such land as he is entitled to purchase under Section
41 and (iii) to such purchase the provisions of Sections 41 to 44 shall mutatis
mutandis apply. Therefore, it is apparent that the scheme of Section 50 is
different from Section 41. See ti on 41 talks of purchase of the land by a tenant
and carves out an exception as provided in sub-section (2) in favour of
B
landlord of specified categories (minor, widow or person subject to physical
disability). As against this, under Section 50 no such exception is carved out
in favour of landlord or tenant who is a minor, a widow or a person subject
to any physical or mental disability. Prescribed time limit for exercise of such
option to purchase the land is only one year. No provision is made for
postponing such right to purchase, if landlord or tenant is minor, widow or C
disabled person. Section 42 provides the extent of land which the tenant may
purchase under Section 41 and limit is prescribed on the basis of three family
holdings. Family holding is defined under Section 2 (13) to mean a family
holding determined under Section 4 in respect of land situated in that local
area. Section 43 provides the procedure for making an offer, determination D
of purchase price and its payment and consequences of non- payment.
Section 44 makes provision that in case there are encumbrances lawfully
subsisting on the land, the purchase price is to be applied towards the
satisfaction of the encumbrances and the procedure for tliat purpose.

As against this, Section 46 provides for deemed purchase of the lands E
held by the tenants witl1 effect from 01.4.1961. A specific provision is made
in case where the Cenant is a minor, a widow, a serving member of armed
forces or a person subject to any physical disability, the ownership of the land
stands transferred after the period specified therein. However, similar benefit
is not given in favour of landlord of such category. Thereafter, the legislature
F
inserted Section 49 (A) by Maharashtra Act 2 of 1961 providing that
notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 41and46 from 01.4.1963 the
ownership of land held by a tenant, which is not transferred to the tenant
under Section 46 or which is not purchased by him under Section 41 or
Section 50, shall stand transfeITed to and vest in such tenant who shall, from
the date aforesaid, be deemed to be the full owner of such land, if such land G
is cultivated by him personally. This purchase is subject to a rider as stated
; in the proviso that where a landlord has made an application for possession
... under Section 38 or 39, then such purchase shall be, on the date on which
application is finally decided, of the land which he is entitled to retain
possession after such decision. ln context of aforesaid sections, it is apparent H
1048 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2000] 2 S.C.R.
A that scheme of Section 50 is to see that either the tenant purchases the land
or restores back the possession of the land to the landlord. It provides that in
case where tenancy is created or restored after 01.4.1963, the tenant is entitled
to purchase the land cultivated by him to the extent mentioned in Section 42
within one year from the date of commencement of the tenancy. If there is
failure to exercise such right, consequences provided in Section 43 (14A)
B
would follow.

Mr. Uday U. Lalit, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
Section 50 specifically provides that provisions of Sections 41 to 44 would
mutatis mutandis apply and, therefore, sub-section (2) of Section 41 would
C automatically apply and the right of the tenant to purchase the land is
postponed till period prescribed therein is over.

This submission, in our view, cannot be accepted firstly because Section
50 only provides that tenant would be entitled to purchase so much of such
land as he may be entitled to purchase under Section 41 and to "such
D purchase" the provisions of Sections 41 to 44 would mutatis mutandis apply.
The concept of mutatis mutandis as understood in context of Section 50 would
be - Sections 41 to 44 would be applicable with necessary changes in the
points of detail to "such purchase'', that is to say, where a tenant has exetcised
his right to purchase the land he can purchase it to the extent permissible under
E Section 42. Thereafter, those parts of Sections which are pertaining to "such
purchase" are made applicable but tllere is no question of postponing "such
purchase" as provided under Section 41(2). Sub-section (2) can not be made
applicable in case of purchase under Section 50, as it does not pertain to the
purchase but it is with regard to postponement of "such purchase". This is
consistent with other provisions, namely, sections 46 and 49(A). Under
F
Section 46 deemed purchase is provided from 01.4.1961 except in those cases
where tenant was a minor, a widow, a serving member of armed forces or a
person subject to any physical or mental disability and in those cases deemed
purchase was postponed till the disability ceased as mentioned therein. No
exception is carved out in favour of landlord who is a minor, widow or
G disabled person. Finally Section 49(A) was added which inter alia provides
that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 41 or 46 ownership of land
held by a tenant being land which is not transferred to the tenant under Section
46 or which is not purchased by him under Sections 41 or 50 shall stand ,'
transferred to and vest in such tenant and from that date he shall be the full
H owner of such land, if such land is cultivated by him personally. Exception is
-- JANBA (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. v. SMT. GOPIKABAI [SHAH, J.] 1049
carved out in favour of the landlord belonging to any of the categories:
specified in sub-section (2) of Section 38 i.e. in favour of a minor, a widow
or a person subject to any physical or mental disability. No such exception is
A·

carved out under Section 50. Secondly, section 50 specifically provides that
every te11ant holding land under such tenancy i.e. tenancy created or restored
after 01.4.1963, and cultivating it personally shall be entitled to purchase
B
within one year from the commencement or as tl1e case may be, the restoration
of the tenancy so much of such land as he may be entitled to pw-chase under
Section 41. That period of one year cannot be changed by holding that sub-
section (2) would be applicable and 'such purchase' is to be postponed for
an indefinite period i.e. after two years from the date of cessation of
disability of the landlord. If this contention is accepted, 'such purchase' c
would be postponed for a period of two years after happening of unce!tain
eventuality, namely, minor landlord becoming major, widow ceasing to be
owner or in case of disabled person, till cessation of mental or physical
disability. That is neither the intention of the legislatw-e nor it is provided.
What is provided for is - to "such pmchase" Sections 41 to 44 mutatis
D
mut0J1dis shall apply.

In the result, in our view, tlie reasons recorded by the High Court do not
call for any interference and therefore, the appeal requires to be dismissed. The
Civil Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.
E
K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.

.
-~