Holding

Because the widow landlord had exercised her right under Section 31(1) and taken possession of half the land, Section 31(3) ceased to apply, and therefore Section 32F did not apply, so the tenant was not required to give notice and his purchase right was not forfeited.

Summary

The appellant, a tenant of agricultural land, cultivated the land personally and was deemed to have purchased it under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, but his purchase right was postponed because the landlord was a widow. The widow exercised her right under Section 31(1) to take possession of half the land for personal cultivation, and the remaining half stayed with the tenant. After the widow's death, her sister, as successor‑in‑title, sought a declaration that the tenant's deemed purchase was void for failing to give a notice of intimation under Section 32F(1A). The Supreme Court held that because the widow had already exercised her Section 31(1) right, Section 31(3) ceased to apply, and consequently Section 32F did not apply, so no notice was required and the tenant's purchase right was not forfeited. The Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the tenant's rights over the remaining land. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the tenant was required to issue a notice of intimation of purchase under Section 32F(1A) to the successor‑in‑title of the widow landlord concerning the half of the land he retained.
Whether the failure to give such notice resulted in forfeiture of the tenant's right to the land or his right to purchase under the Act.

Legislation cited

Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948s. 29, s. 31, s. 31(1), s. 31(2), s. 31(3), s. 31B, s. 31C, s. 31D, s. 31G, s. 32, s. 32F, s. 32F(1A), s. 32G, s. 32H, s. 32P

Subjects

tenancydeemed purchasewidow landlordSection 31Section 32Fnotice of intimationforfeitureBombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands ActSupreme Court

Judgment

A SUDAM GANPAT KUTWAL P.A. HOLDER OF SHANKAR SITARAM
BHOSLE
v.
SHEVANTABAI TUKARAM GULUMKAR (DEAD) BY LR MARUTI
SHANKAR PACHPUTE

B AUGUST I 8, 2006

[ARIJIT PASA VAT AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.]

Land Tenancy Laws:
c
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948:

Section 31 read with Section 32F-Termination of tenancy-Right of
landlord-Deemed purchase-Right of tenant where landlady is a widow--
D Issue of notice of purchase-Requirement of-A tenant was inducted in an
agriculwral land and was cultivating the same persona//y--Though the
tenant was registered as the tenant of the said land, his right to purchase
under the deemed purchase under S. 32 was postponed as the landlady was
a widow--The landlady filed an application under S. 31 read with S. 29
seeking possession of the land in the occupation of the tenant on the grounrf
E that she required the land for her personal cultivation-Possession of half
of the land was delivered to the landlady-Tenant continued in possession
of the remaining half portion-Subsequently, landlady sold portion of the
land which she got to others under different sale deeds-After the death of
the landlady, the name of her sister was entered as her successor-in-title in
F the record of rights-The said sister filed an application under S. 32P read
with S. 32F for a declaration that the deemed statlllory purchase by the
tenant he declared as void and inefjective for future to issue notice under Sec.
32-F(/A)-The Agricultural Land Tribunal allowed the application as the
tenant had failed to issue a notice ofpurchase-High Court affirmed the said
decision--Currectness of-Held: As the landlady had exercised her right to
G take possession for personal cultivation under S. 31 (/) during her lifetime
and got possession of half of the land no right survived under S. 31 (3) to
her or her successor-in-title lo seek the remaining land having regard to the
bar contained in S. 3/C-Therefore, there was no need to issue notice of
intimation of purchase with 32-F(J A)-Hence, failure to do so did not result

H 682
S.G. KUTWAL P.A. HOLDER OF S.S. BHOSLE v. S.T. GULUMKAR (DEAD\ BY LR MARUTI SHANKAR 683

in forfeiture of the tenant's right to the said land or right to purchase the A
said land under theAct-High Court's judgment set aside-Position emerging
from Sections 31, 32F and 32G, where the landlord is a widow stated.

The appellant was inducted as the tenant of an agricultural land and
was cultivating the same personally. Though the appellant was registered as
the tenant of the said land, his right to purchase under the deemed purchase B
under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
was postponed as the landlady was a widow. The landlady filed an application
under Section 31 read with Section 29 of the Act seeking possession of the
land in the occupation of the appellant-tenant on the ground that she required
the land for her personal cultivation. Possession of half of the land was C
delivered to the landlady and the appellant continued in possession of the
remaining half portion. The landlady sold portion of the land which she got
for her personal cultivation to others under different sale deeds.

Thereafter, the landlady filed tenancy case seeking possession of the
remaining half of the land on the gr:iund that the appellant had committed D
certain defaults. The Mamlatdar rejected the said petition. After the death of
the landlady, the name of her sister was entered as her successor-in-title in
the record of rights.

The said sister filed an application under Section 32P read with Section
32F of the Act for a declaration that the deemed statutory purchase by the E
tenant be declared as void and ineffective, as the tenant had failed to fulfil the
mandatory requirement of giving a notice of intimation of purchase within
the time stipulated under Section 32F(IA) of the Act. The Agricultural Land
Tribunal allowed the application. The High Court dismissed the writ petition
filed by the appellant-tenant. Hence the appeal. F
The following questions arose before the Court:-

I. Whether it was necessary for the tenant to issue a notice of intimation
of purchase under Section 32F(1A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act, 1948 to the successor-in-title of the landlady in regard to the half G
portion retained by him under Section 318(1) read with Section 31(1)?
(688-G, H(

2. Whether the failure to do so resulted in forfeiture of the tenant's
right to the said land or right to purchase the said land under the Bombay
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948? 1688-H; 689-A( H
684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: l. lfthe widow-landlady who died on 23.3.1975, had died without
exercising her right under Section 31(1) of the Bombay Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 and without taking back half the tenanted land,
her successor-in-title could have exercised the right of termination for
B personal use by issuing a notice on or before 23.3.1976 (vide Section 31(3)
read with Section 31(1) & (2) of the Act); and the tenant-appellant would have
had the right to purchase the tenanted land under Section 32 till 23.3.1977,
provided he gave an intimation to the landlord and the Agricultural Land
Tribunal on or before 23.3.1977 under Section 32F(l) read with Section
C 32F(IA) of the Act. But as the landlady had exercised her right to take
possession for personal cultivation under Section 31(1) of the Act during her
lifetime and got possession of half of the land no right survived under Section
31(3) to her or her successor-in-title to seek the remaining land for personal
cultivation having regard to the bar contained in Section 31C. If the widow-
landlady and her successor-in-title lost the right to terminate the tenancy in
D regard to the remaining land (having regard to the bar contained in Section
31C) and, therefore, Section 31(3) ceased to apply, it follows that Section 32F
also did not apply. This is because, the right has to be exercised under Section
32F(I) only where Section 31(3) applied. If Section 32F(I) did not apply, there
was no need at all for the tenant to issue any notice of intimation to the
E landlord or the successor-in-title of the landlord proposing to purchase the
land under Section 32F(lA).

Amrit Bhikaji Kale v. Kasliinath Janardhan Trade, (19831 3 SCC 437,
Anna Bhau Magdum v. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai, [1995) 5 SCC 243, Appa
Narsappa Magdum v. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar, (1999) 4 SCC 443 and
F Balchandra Anantrao Rakvi v. Ramchandra Tukaram, (2001) 8 SCC 616, held
inapplicable.

2. As the appellant's case is governed by Section 31(1), 318(1) and 31C,
rent for the land remaining with the tenant (after the landlord has taken half
the land under Section 31(1) of the Act) had to be apportioned as provideo in
G Section 31 D and the liability to pay such rent would continue until price for
the land is determined under Section 31G(5) on either the landlord or the
tenant approaching the Tribunal and such price is paid by the tenant.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3128 of2000.

H
S.G. KUTWAL P.A. HOLDER Of S.S. BMOSLE 1•. S.T. GULUMKAR (DEAD) BY LR MARUTI SHANKAR IRAVEENDRAN. J.J685

From the Judgment and Order dated 9.7.1999 of the High Court of A
Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 2599/1999.

Amol Chitale, Prasenjit Keswani, Nitin Sangra, Venkateshwar Rao
Anumolu and Ravindra Keshavrao Adsure for the Appellant.

lndu Malhotra, lnkleee Barooah, Rakhi Ray and Bina Gupta for the B
Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

RA VEENDRAN, J. This appeal by special leave is against the order
dated 9.7.1999 passed by the Bombay High Court rejecting W.P. No.2599 of C
1999 filed by the appellant. It is stated that 'Sudam Ganpat Kutwal' shown
as appellant is the P.A. Holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle, that he had filed
W.P. No.2599/1999 as the Attorney holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle, that he
filed the SLP also as Attorney holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle, but that has
not been stated in the cause title due to oversight, though he has specifically
mentioned this fact in his rejoinder affidavit filed on 26.4.2000. In view of it, D
the appellant is permitted and directed to amend the cause title so as to
describe him as P.A. Holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle. In view of it, the term
appellant in this order would refer to Shankar Sitaram Bhosle.

2. The appellant's c_ase in brief is as follows :
E
(2.1) The appellant was inducted as the tenant of agricultural land
bearing Gat No.332 in village Jogwadi, Taluk Baramati, District Pune, measuring
25 acres 9 Guntas, in the year 1954 and was cultivating the same personally.

(2.2) Under section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands F
Act, 1948 ('Act' for short), on the first day of April, 1956 (referred to as 'tillers
day'), every tenant was deemed to have purchased the land held by him as
tenant, from his landlord, free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon, on
the conditions stated therein being fulfilled. The revenue records show that
though the appellant was registered as the tenant of the said land on the
tillers day, his right to purchase under the deemed purchase was postponed G
as the landlord was a widow.

(2.3) The landlord (Anusuyabai Bhosle) filed an application (Tenancy
Application No. 3/1958) under Section 31 read with Section 29 of the Act,
seeking possession of the land in the occupation of the Appellant tenant on
the ground that she required the land for her personal cultivation. The H
686 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A Tenancy Awai Karkun, Baramati, accepted the claim of the landlord and made
an order dated 30.6. I960 directing that possession of half of the land should
be delivered to the landlord for her bona fide personal cultivation and
possession of the remaining half shall remain with the tenant. In pursuance
of it, the appellant delivered half of the land (the eastern portion) to Anusuyabai
B and continued in possession of the remaining half portion. It is alleged that
Anusuyabai sold the land which she got for her persona! cultivation, to
others under different sale deeds.

(2.4) Anusuyabai thereafter filed Tenancy Case No.95/1964 before the
Mamlatdar, Baramati, seeking possession of the remaining half of the land on
C the ground that the appellant had committed certain defaults. The Mam!atdar
rejected the said petition by the following order dated 9.2.1965 :

"The applicant has already taken possession of half of the suit land
from the opponent tenant. s:-ie has now applied to obtain possession
of remaining half land on the ground of defaults. The opponent has
D already paid the rent due to the applicant by money order. The
opponent has produced the money order receipt in the matter. It is
therefore clear that the opponent is not the intentional defaulter. I
cannot therefore grant the request of the applicant to hand over the
possession of the remaining half land. The request of the applicant
is therefore refused. The application of the applicant is therefore
E dismissed. The parties should bear their own cost."

(2.5) The landlord Anusuyabai died on 23.3.1975, and thereafter, the
name of her sister Shevantabai was entered as her successor-in-title in the
record of rights. The said Shevantabai filed Application No. 72/1994 under
Section 32P read with Section 32F of the Act on 19.1.1994 for a declaration
F that the deemed statutory purchase by the tenant be declared as void and
ineffective, as the tenant had failed to fulfil the mandatory requirement of
giving a notice of intimation of purchase within the time stipulated, under
Section 32F(IA) of the Act.

G 3. The Agricultural Land Tribunal made an order dated 30.4.1994
accepting the contention of Shevantabai that the tenant had failed to issue
a notice of purchase. The tenant was, therefore, directed to deliver possession
to Shevantabai under Section 32P(2)(b) of the Act. Feeling aggrieved, the
tenant filed an appeal under Section 74 of the Act before the Sub-Divisional
Officer, Baramati Division, in Tenancy Case No.35/1994. The appellate authority
H by order dated 2.6.1995, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remitted the
S.G. KUTWAL P.A. HOLDER OF S.S. BHOSLE 1•. S.T. GULUMKAR (DEAD) BY LR MARUTI SHANKAR IRAVEENDRAN. J.1687

matter to the Tribunal, to hold a detailed inquiry into the matter with reference A
to the earlier proceedings.

4. The Land Tribunal held an inquiry and made an order dated 30.9.1995,
reiterating its earlier finding that the tenant had failed to serve a notice of
purchase within the stipulated time and, therefore, had lost the right to
purchase the land. The appellant challenged the said order also in appeal B
(Tenancy Case No.27/1995) before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Baramati.
Shevantabai and the Respondent herein who was representing her then, were
the respondents in the said appeal.

5. During the pendency of the appeal, Shevantabai died on 15.4.1996. C
The said appeal was allowed, in part, by order dated 22.4.1996. The Appellate
Authority upheld the order of the Tribunal to the extent that the tenant had
failed to exercise his right by issuing a notice as required under Section 32F
>
(I A) of the Act. It, however, set aside the direction to the appellant to deliver
the land to Shevantabai, as that portion of the order was passed without
holding any enquiry as to landlord's right to terminate the tenancy. D
Consequently, the Land Tribunal was directed to hold a separate enquiry
regarding the right of the landlord under section 3 I read with Section 32F and
then, if necessary, a separate enquiry under section 32P.

6. Both parties, that is the respondent herein (as legal heir of Sevantabai, E
claiming to be legatee under her will) as also the appellant, challenged the
order dated 22/24.4.1996 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer before the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by filing revision petitions. The Revenue
Tribunal by its common order dated 4.1.1999 rejected the appellant's revision
and allowed in part, the Respondent's revision. It held that after the death of
Anusuyabai, the tenant had not exercised his right to purchase the land, by F
giving an intimation as required under section 32F(IA) within the stipulated
time and therefore, his right to purchase became ineffective and the tenancy
came to an end. It also set aside the direction of the SDO that a separate
inquiry should be held regarding the right of landlord under Section 31 read
with Section 32F, followed, if necessary, by a separate inquiry under Section G
32P. A direction came to be issued for delivering possession of the disputed
land to the Respondent under Section 32P.

7. The appellant challenged the order of the tribunal in W.P. No.2599/
1999. Before the High Court, the appellant contended that the landlord
(Anusuyabai) though a widow, had exercised her right of tenninating the H
688 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A tenancy and seeking possession of the land; and that in pursuance of the
order passed in such proceedings, he had delivered half of the land and
therefore the question of the successor-in-title of Anusuyabai seeking
possession of the balance land which remained with the tenant (under section
31 B( I) of the Act), did not arise. The Bombay High Court dismissed the said
B writ petition by order dated 9.7.1999 holding that the appellant had failed to
prove from the records produced, that Anusuyabai had exercised the right to
get back possession under section 31(1) of the Act or that the concerned
authority had ordered delivery of half of the land to her. The said order is
challenged by the tenant in this appeal by special leave.

C 8. The appellant contended that the High Court committed a serious
error in holding that the records before it did not show half of the land was
ordered to be delivered to the landlord Anusuyabai under section 31 (I) of

D
the Act. He referred to the High Court record which contained a copy of the
order dat>:d 2.6.1995 of the SDO in Tenancy Case No.35/1994 as an annexure
to the writ petition, wherein it is clearly stated thus :
-
"This mutation states that the landlady was widow and the right of
tenants to purchase the suit property is postponed. However, later on
there was proceedings under the Tenancy Act. The intimation of this
Case No.3/1958 in Tenancy Case No.518/60 is present in lower court's
E papers. (Page 91) which shows that half of the suit land was ordered
to be handed over to the landlady"

The appellant has also produced in this Court, a copy of the order dated
30.6.1960 in Tenancy Case No.3/1958 directing delivery of possession of half
of the land to Anusuyabai. The learned counsel for the respondent did not
F dispute the fact that half of the land had in fact, been delivered by the tenant
to Anusuyabai in pursuance of the order dated 30.6.1960. This is even referred
to in the list of dates submitted on behalf of respondent. Therefore, the facts
that Anusuyabai had exercised her right to seek possession under Section
31 ( l ), that the concerned Authority had made an order directing the tenant
G to deliver half the land to Anusuyabai for her personal cultivation and that
Anusuyabai took possession oi' half the tenanted land, are not in dispute.

9. The dispute in this appeal relates to the question as to whether it was
necessary for the tenant to issue a notice of intimation of purchase under
Section 32F (I A) of the Act to the successor-in-title of Anusuyabai in regard
H to the half portion retained by him under section 31 B (I) read with section
31 (I) of the Act and whether the failure to do so resulted in forfeiture of the
S.G. KUTWAL P.A HOLDER OF S.S. BHOSLE 1•. S.T. GULUMKAR(DEAD) BY LR MARUTI SHANKAR !RAVEENDRAN. J.1()89

tenant's right to the said land or right to purchase the said land under the A
Act.

10. Reference to relevant Sections of the Act will be useful to decide
this question.

(I 0.1) Section 29 deals with the procedure of taking possession. Sub- B
section (2) of section 29, as it stood at the relevant point of time (prior to
commencement of Mah. Act 39 of 1964), provided that no landlord shall
obtain possession of any land held by a tenant except under an order of the
Mamlatdar, and that for obtaining such order he shall make an application in
. the prescribed form within a period of two years from the date on which the C
right to obtain possession of the land, is deemed to have accrued to him.

(10.2) Chapter III of the Act deals with the special rights and privileges
of tenants and provisions for distribution of land for personal cultivation. Part
I of the said Chapter (section 31 to 3 ID) relates to termination of tenancy for
personal cultivation and non-agricultural use. Part II (sections 32 to 33) relates D
to purchase of land by tenants. Section 31 relates to landlord's right to
terminate tenancy for personal cultivation. Sub-section (I) enables the landlord
to terminate the tenancy of any land after giving notice and making an
application for possession as provided in sub-section (2), ifthe landlord bona
fide requires the land for cultivating it personally. Sub-section (2) stipulates
that the notice required to be given under sul:J-section (I) shall be in writing, E
shall state the purpose for which the landlord requires the land and shall be
served on the tenant on or before 31.12.1956 and a copy of such notice shall,
at the same time, be sent to the Mamlatdar, and an application for possession
under Section 29 shall be made to the Mamlatdar on .or before the 31.3 .1957.
Sub-section (3) provides as follows :
F
"(3) Where a landlord is a minor or a widow, or a person subject to
mental or physical disability, 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; G
(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."
H
690 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A (10.3) Section 31 B provides that in no case a tenancy shall be terminated
under Section 31 in such a manner as will result in leaving with a tenant, after
termination, less than half the area of the land leased to him. Section 31 C
provides that the tenancy of any land left with the tenant after the termination
of the tenancy under section 3 I shall not at any time afterwards be liable to
termination again on the ground that the landlord bona fide requires that land
B for personal cultivation. Section 31 D provides that if in consequence of the
termination of tenancy under section 31, any part of the land leased is left
with the tenant, the rent shall be apportioned in the prescribed manner in
proportion to the area of the land left with the tenant.

C (I 0.4) Section 32( I) provides that on the first day of April, 1957 (tillers'
day) every tenant shall, subject to the provisions of the next succeeding
sections, be deemed to have purchased from his landlord, free of all
encumbrances subsisting thereon on the said day, the land held by him as
tenant, if

D "(a) such tenant is a permanent tenant thereof and cultivates land
personally:
(b) such tenant is not a permanent tenant but cultivates the land
leased personally: and
(i) the landlord has not given notice of termination of his tenancy
E under section 3 I ; or
(ii) notice has been given under section 31, but the landlord has
not applied to the Mamlatdar on or before the 31st day of March
1957 under section 29 for obtaining possession of the land; or
(iii) the landlord has not terminated this tenancy on any of the
F grounds specified in section 14, or has so terminated the tenancy
but has not applied to [the Mamlatdar on or before the 31st day
of March 1957 under section 29 for obtaining possession of the
lands :"

G The words 'subject to the provisions of the next succeeding sections' in
Section 32(1) was am.:nded as ·subject to other provisions of this section and
the provisions of the next succeeding sections' and the following was inserted
as sub-section (3), by Born. Act 63 of 1958 :

"(3) In respect of the iand deemed to have been purchased by a tenant
H under sub-section (I) -~
S.G. KUTWAL P.A. HOLDER OF S.S. BHOSLE 1·. S.T. GULUMKAR (DEAD) BY LR MARUTI SHANKAR jRAVEENDRAN. ll 691

(a) the tenant-purchaser shall be liable to pay to the fonner landlord A
compensation for the use and occupation of the land, a sum equal to
the rent of such land every year, and

(b) the former landlord shall continue to be liable to pay to the State
Government the dues, if any, referred to in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d)
of sub-section ( l) of section l OA, where the tenant-purchaser is not B
liable to pay such dues under sub-section (3) of that section until the
amount of the purchase price payable by the tenant-purchaser to the
fonner landlord is detennined under section 32H.

(l 0.5.) Section 32F deals with the right of tenant to purchase where
landlord is minor, or a widow, or a person subject to any mental or physical C
disability. Clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 32F provides that
notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding sections, where the
landlord is a widow, the tenant shall have the right to purchase such land
under section 32 within one year from the expiry of the period during which
such landlord is entitled to tenninate the tenancy under section 31. Sub- D
section ( 1A) of section 32F inserted by Bombay Act 38 of 1957, reads thus

"(l A) A tenant desirous of exercising the right conferred on him under
sub-section(!) shall give an intimation in that behalf to the landlord
and the Tribunal in the prescribed manner within the period specified E
in that sub-section :"

Sub-section. (2) of section 32F provides that the provisions of section 32 to
32F and 32G to 32R shall, so far as may be possible, apply to such purchase.

(10.6) Section 32G requires the Tribunal to issue notice to the parties, p
as soon as may be, after the tillers' day, record the statement of the tenant,
whether he is willing to purchase the land and then determine the price of the
land to be paid by the tenant. Sub-section (5) provides that in the case of
a tenant who is deemed to have purchased the land on the postponed date,
the Tribunal shall, as soon as may be, after such date, detennine the price of
~~ G
11. The position as disclosed by a combined and hannonious reading
of Sections 31, 32, 32F and 32G may be stated thus :

(a) Where the landlord has not served on the tenant, a notice of
tennination (as stated in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section H
692 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A 32), the tenant is deemed to have purchased the land on the
tillers day ( 1.4.1957);
(b) Where the tenant is deemed to have purchased the land on the
Tillers Day (1.4.1957), the Lands Tribunal is required to issue
notice and determine the price of land to be paid by tenant.
B Where there is a deemed purchase, but the right to purchase is
postponed, the Land Tribunal shall determine the price of land,
as soon as may be after the postponed date.

(c) A landlord had a right to give notice and make an application for
possession after terminating the tenancy, if he wanted the land
c bona fide for personal cultivation, provided the notice was served
on the tenant on or before 31.12.1956 (with copy to Mamlatdar)
and application for possession under section 29 was filed on or
before 31.3.1957.
(d) A landlord widow is also entitled to make an application for
D possession under sub-section ( 1) of section 31 of the Act. Sub-
section (3) of section 31 which is an enabling provision, extends
the time within which the widow can seek possession under
section 31(1) of the Act, beyond 31.12.1956. As a result, where
the landlord is a widow, then the notice required under sub-
section (I) of section 31 may be given and the application for
E possession under section 29 may be made by her so long as her
interest in the land exists. Such notice can also be given by the
successor-in-title of the widow within one year from the date on
which the interest of the widow in the land ceases to exist.
(e) Where the landlord is a widow (and she does not exercise her
F right under section 31 (I) of the Act), the right to purchase under
the deemed purchase is postponed till the expiry of the period
during which such (disabled) landlord is entitled to terminate the
cenancy under section 31 (3). The tenant desirous of exercising
such right shall, however, given an intimation in that behalf to the
landlord and the tribunal within one year thereafter, as required
G
under section 32F (IA).
Consequently, where the landlord, being a widow as on 1.4.1957,
does not 6hoose to terminate the tenancy for personal cultivation,
the tenancy continues during her lifetime and on the death of the
widow, her successor-in-title will have the right to terminate the
H
S.G. !.'.UTWAL P.A. HOLDER Of S.S. BHOSLE '" S.T. GULUMKAR(DEAD) BY LR MARUTI SHANKAR IRAVEENDRAN. 11693

tenancy within one year from the date of death of the widow. The A
tenant shall have the right to purchase such land, under section
32, within one year from the expiry of the period during which
such successor-in-title of the widow is given the right to terminate
the tenancy under section 31 (3) by giving an intimation as
required under section 32F(IA).
B
(f) Where a landlord, who is a widow, exercises her right of termination
and secures possession of part of the tenanted land for personal
cultivation under section 31(1) of the Act, then there is-no question
of her successor-in-title giving a notice of termination within one
year from the date on which the widow's interest ceases to exist.
When section 31 (3) ceases to apply, section 32F also will not C
apply and there is no need for the tenant to give any intimation
under section 32F(IA).
(g) On an order for possession being made in favour of a widow-
landlord in regard to land up to 50% of the tenanted land under
section 31 (I) read with section 318( 1), the widow will get D
possession of such land and the tenant continues in possession
in regard to the remaining land. In regard to the land remaining
with the tenant, rent has to be fixed under section 31 D, until the
purchase price is determined under section 32G(5) and is paid by
the tenant purchaser. E
12. If Anusuyabai, the widow landlord who died on 23.3.1975, had died
without exercising her right under section 31(1) of the Act, and without taking
back half the tenanted land, her successor-in-title could have exercised the
right of termination for personal use by issuing a notice on or before 23.3.1976
[vide section 31(3) read with section 31(1)&(2) of the Act]; and the tenant - F
appellant would have had the right to purchase the tenanted land under
section 32 till 23.3.1977, provided he gave an intimation to the landlord and
the Tribunal on or before 23.3.1977 under section 32F(l) read with section
32F(IA) of the Act. But as Anusuyabai had exercised her right to take
possession for personal cultivation, under section 31 (I) of the Act, during her
life time and got possession of half of the land, no right survived under G
section 31(3) to her or her successor-in-title to seek the remaining land for
personal cultivation having regard to the bar contained in section 31 C. If the
widow-landlord and her successor-in-title lost the right to terminate the tenancy
in regard to the remaining land (having regard to the bar contained in section
31 C) and therefore, section 31(3) ceased to apply, it follows that section 32F H
694 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006) SUPP. 4 S.C.R.

A also did not apply. This is because, the right has to be exercised under section
32F{I ), only where section 31{3) applied. If section 32F{I) did not apply, there
was no need at all for the tenant to issue any notice of intimation to the
landlord or to the successor-in-title of the landlord proposing to purchase the
land under section 32F{IA).

B 13. Unfortunately, this aspect of the matter has been completely
overlooked by the High Court and the authorities under the Act The authorities
under the Act proceeded on the assumption that even where a widow- .
landlord had terminated the tenancy and taken possession of the permissible
extent of tenanted land, section 31(3) would continue to apply and
C consequently, section 32F will also apply, and therefore, there was a need for
the tenant to give a notice of intimation of purchase under section 32F(IA),
on the death of Anusuyabai. The High Court, however, did not examine this
aspect at all as it proceeded on the basis that the widow-landlord did not
terminate the tenancy and take possession of the permissible extent of land.

D 14. As the Appellant's case is governed by section 31(1), 318(1) and
3 IC, rent for the land remaining with the tenant (after the landlord has taken
halflthe land under section 31(1) of the Act) had to be apportioned as ·
provided in section 31 D, and the liability to pay such rent would continue
until price for the land is determined under section 32G(5) on either the
landlord or the tenant approaching the Tribunal, and such price is paid by
E the tenant.

15. Learned counsel for the respondent relied on the decisions of this
Court in Amrit Bhikaji Kale & Ors. v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade & Af'T.,
[1983] 3 SCC 437, Anna Bhau Magdum (d) by LRs. v. Babasaheb Anandrao
F Desai, [1995] 5 SCC 243, Appa Narsappa Magdum (D) through LRs. v.
Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar & Ors., [1999] 4 SCC 443 and Balchandra
Anantrao Rakvi & Ors. v. Ramchandra Tukaram (Dead) by LRs. etc. [2001]
8 SCC 616, to contend that the tenant has to issue a notice under section 32F
within the period prescribed and if he fails to do so, he loses the right to
purchase the land and the landlord will become entitled to the same absolutely.
G These were all cases where the landlord under disability had not sought
possession for personal cultivation under section 31(1) and where admittedly,
section 31(3) and 32F applied and consequently, there was an obligation on
the part of the tenant to send an intimation under section 32F (IA). None of
the cases related to a widow-landlord who had terminated the tenancy during
H her lifetime and taken possession of a portion of the tenanted land. Therefore,
S.G. KUTWAL P.A. HOLDER OF S.S. BHOSLE v. S.T. GULUMKAR (DEAD) BY LR MARUTJ SHANKAR IRAVEENDRAN, J.1695

the said decisions will not apply. A
· 16. As a consequence, we allow this appeal and set aside the order of
the High Court and those of the authorities below and hold that the appellant-
tenant continued to be the tenant of the land which remained with him after
delivering half of the land to the landlord Anusuyabai in pursuance of the
order dated 30.6.1960 made on her application under section 31(1) read with B
section 29 of the Act. The appellant shall be entitled to restoration, if he has
been dispossessed by the respondent from any part of his land in Gat No.332
in pursuance of the order of SDO/Revenue Tribunal/High Court. Parties will
also be entitled to seek benefits/reliefs referred to in para 14 above.

v.s.s. Appeal allowed. C