Supreme Court of India
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. & ORS .versusANANT MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS
- Citation
- 2018 INSC 1203
- Decided
- 18 September 2019
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Holding
The 1969 amendment’s object applies to all three categories of disabled landlords, and the words “of the fact that he has attained majority” are struck out, making the landlord’s intimation duty applicable to widows and disabled landlords, thereby restoring the tenant’s right to purchase.
Summary
The appellants, long‑time tenants of a parcel of agricultural land, sought to exercise their statutory right to purchase the land after the landlord, a widow, died and her interest passed to her heir. The lower courts held that the tenants had lost the right because they failed to give the required intimation under Section 32‑F(1‑A) of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Supreme Court examined whether the object of the 1969 amendment, which inserted a requirement that a landlord who attains majority must inform the tenant, should also apply to widows and disabled landlords, and whether the classification created by the amendment violated Article 14. Relying on the purpose of the agrarian‑reform scheme, the Court struck out the words “of the fact that he has attained majority” so that the intimation duty applies uniformly to all three categories of landlords. It held that the successor‑in‑interest of a widow must send the intimation, thereby reviving the tenant’s right to purchase. Earlier decisions that limited the intimation requirement to minors were overruled. The appeals were allowed and the High Court judgment set aside.
Issues considered
- The object and purpose of the 1969 amendment to Section 32‑F(1)(a) is it applicable to landlords who are widows or suffering from disability?
- Is the successor‑in‑interest of a widow obliged to give intimation to the tenant to enable exercise of the right of purchase?
- Do the provisions of Section 32‑F(1)(a) as amended violate Article 14 by creating an arbitrary classification?
- Should the earlier judgments in Appa Narsappa, Sudam Ganpat Kutwal and Tukaram Maruti Chavan be overruled?
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. Article 14, s. Article 31A
- Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948s. 2(6), s. 31, s. 32, s. 32-F, s. 32-F(1)(a), s. 32-F(1A), s. 32-F(1B), s. 32-G, s. 32-O, s. 32-P
- Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1957s. 32
- Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1969s. 32-F(1)(a)
Subjects
tenancyagricultural landright of purchaseTillers' Daystatutory interpretationArticle 14discriminationamendmentintimationlandlordwidowdisabilityagrarian reform
Judgment
[2019] 15 S.C.R. 569 569
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. & ORS. A
v.
ANANT MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 11774 of 2018)
SEPTEMBER 18, 2019 B
[R. F. NARIMAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY
AND SURYA KANT, JJ.]
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 –
s.32-F(1)(a) – Amendment made in s. 32 F(1)(a) by Act 49 of 1969
C
– Object and purpose of – Relevancy and applicability of the
object of Amendment made in s. 32-F(1)(a) by Act of 1969 for
exercise of right to purchase by a tenant of a landlord who was a
widow or suffering from mental or physical disability on Tillers’
day – Held: Object of the Amendment Act of 1969 is relevant and
applicable in deciding the scope of the right to purchase by a D
tenant of a landlord who was a widow or suffering from mental
or physical disability on Tillers’ day – Successor-in-interest of a
widow is obliged to send an intimation to the tenant of cessation
of interest of the widow to enable the tenant to exercise his right
of purchase.
E
Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 –
s. 32-F(1)(a) – Interpretation of – Literal interpretation or golden
rule of interpretation – By introduction of s 32-F by the Amendment
Act of 1956, tenant was given right to purchase where landlord
was minor or a widow or a person subject to mental or physical
F
disability within one year from the expiry of the period during
which such landlord was entitled to terminate the tenancy u/s. 31
– However, number of tenants holding land from landlords who
were minors lost right to purchase land for their failure to give
intimation within the period laid down in sub-section (1-A) of s.
32 – Thus, to give the tenants fresh opportunity to purchase land, G
s.32-F amended by Amendment Act 49 of 1969 – Words “and for
enabling the tenant to exercise the right of purchase, the landlord
shall send an intimation to the tenant of the fact that he has attained
majority, before the expiry of the period during which such
landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy u/s. 31, inserted into
H
569
570 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A sub section (1)(a) – Amendment to s.32-F(1)(a) expressly covered
a case of landlord who was minor and has attained majority, but
other two categories ‘widow or a person subject to mental or
physical not expressly included – Held: Literal reading of s. 32-
F(1)(a) would lead to absurd situation – Draftsman forgot that
when the addition to s. 32-F(1)(a) was made, s. 32F(1)(a) referred
B
to three categories of landlords and not only one – Law may
recognise degrees of harm, but in so doing the classification should
never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive – Classification made in
favour of tenants of minor landlords as opposed to tenants of
landlords of the other two categories is arbitrary in nature – Thus,
C such classification would ordinarily have to be struck down as
being violative of Art. 14 – However, instead of striking down such
classification as a whole, the words “..of the fact that he has
attained majority..”, can be striked down, as a result s. 32-F(1)(a)
now ceases to be discriminatory, since it is applicable to tenants
of all three categories of landlords – Thus, in order to read s. 32-
D
F(1)(a) in conformity with Art. 14, the words “..of the fact that he
has attained majority..” is eliminated so that the intimation that is
to be made by the landlord has to be made to tenants of all the
three categories of landlords covered by the provision –
Interpretation of statutes – Constitution of India – Art.14.
E Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 –
s. 32-F(1)(a) – Right of tenant to purchase where landlord is minor,
etc. – Construction of s. 32 F(1)(a) – Held: Cultivating tenant in
all cases where the landlord is a minor, a widow or a person
subjected to a disability, does not statutorily become owner of the
F agricultural land cultivated personally by him on Tillers’ Day –
These three categories of landlords are deemed to cultivate
personally through such tenant – In any of these three cases, the
moment the disability ceases, the land no longer belongs to a minor,
as he has become major, or to a widow, as she has died or
transferred her share with permission u/s.63, or to a person whose
G mental or physical disability ceases – Such persons are granted
one year to apply for resumption of the land on the ground that
such persons wish to personally cultivate the said land, pursuant
to which an application for possession of land u/s. 29 may then
be made – In case this is done within the time prescribed, the
tenant’s right to purchase does not fructify – Right of the tenant is
H postponed, only when this is not done within the period of one year.
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 571
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS.
Allowing the appeals, the Court A
HELD: 1. The object of the Amendment Act of 1969 is
relevant and applicable in deciding the scope of the right to
purchase by a tenant of a landlord who was a widow or suffering
from mental or physical disability on Tillers’ day. The successor-
in-interest of a widow is obliged to send an intimation to the B
tenant of cessation of interest of the widow to enable the tenant
to exercise his right of purchase. [Para 50] [630-C-E]
2.1 The Scheme of the Maharashtra Tenancy and
Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and in particular, the 1956
Amendment, which introduced Tillers’ Day, is that an absentee C
landlord’s rights in the land must give way to a cultivating tenant.
Statutorily, on Tillers’ Day, the landlord is divested of title and
the tenant is vested with title to agricultural land which he
cultivates by dint of his own effort. It is only in three cases that
such purchase becomes ineffective-if the tenant fails to appear
within the time prescribed after notice is given to him, or D
appears and declines purchase, or if the tenant fails to pay the
entire purchase price. The widow, the minor and the person
subject to a disability are placed on the same pedestal, and
throughout their widowhood, minority or period of disability are
deemed to cultivate the land personally through their tenants – E
the Explanation - I to Section 2(6) makes this clear. In the vast
majority of cases, the landlord is divested of his title on a fixed
date i.e. 1st April, 1957. It is only in exceptional cases where the
landlord is a widow, minor or a person subjected to disability that
this right of the tenant is postponed. It is important to note that
it is to the knowledge of both landlord and tenant that the tenant F
becomes the owner statutorily on a fixed date i.e. 1st April, 1957.
Even otherwise, on postponed dates that are mentioned under
Section 32, the tenant shall be deemed to have purchased the
land on such postponed date under the first proviso to sub-
section (1) of Section 32 when an application for possession
G
made by the landlord under Section 29 is finally rejected – a date
that is to the knowledge of both landlord and tenant. Also, under
the circumstances prescribed under Section 32(1A), again the
tenant shall be deemed to have purchased the land on a
date on which a final order is passed by the Tribunal in the
circumstances mentioned in the said sub-section. Again, under H
572 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A sub-section (1B), in the circumstances mentioned in the said sub-
section, land gets restored to the tenant upon which deemed
purchase takes place. Statutorily, therefore, in all cases covered
by s. 32, the landlord is divested of his title either on Tillers’
Day or on a postponed date which is to the knowledge of the
tenant, as the said date is on and from a final order of a Tribunal
B
or a Tahsildar, as the case may be. [Para 13] [600-H; 601-A-F]
2.2 Section 32-G is a very important pointer to the fact that
a tenant must be put on notice in order that the purchase price
of land be determined by the Tribunal. This notice under Section
32-G(1) is in the form of a public notice in the prescribed form
C in each village. Apart from this, the Tribunal shall also issue a
notice individually to each tenant calling upon him to appear
before it on the date specified in the notice. The same is the
case of a tenant who is deemed to have purchased the land on
the postponed date under Section 32-G(5). Under Section 32-O
D in respect of tenancies created after Tillers’ Day, a tenant
cultivating personally shall be entitled, within one year from the
commencement of such tenancy, to purchase such land within
the ceiling area. Under sub-section (1A), this right is to be
exercised by giving an intimation in that behalf to the landlord
and the Tribunal in the prescribed manner within the period of
E one year. This again is a date which is within the knowledge of
the tenant as the period of one year is calculated from the
commencement of his tenancy. It can thus be seen that in the
case of postponed dates under Section 32 and the right of a
tenant in respect of tenancies created after Tillers’ Day, the
F tenant is to exercise his statutory right knowing fully well that
if he does not do so within the prescribed period or does not
pay purchase price, the purchase either becomes ineffective or
the right cannot be exercised. In all these cases, the tenant
knows of the time within which he must exercise his rights. [Para
14] [601-G-H; 602-A-D]
G
2.3 Section 32-F was introduced by the Amendment Act
of 1956 as part of a scheme of agrarian reform. The reason for
the non-obstante clause, with which the Section begins, is that
the cultivating tenant in all cases where the landlord is a minor,
a widow or a person subjected to a disability, does not statutorily
H become owner of the agricultural land cultivated personally by
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 573
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS.
him on Tillers’ Day. This is for the reason that under Section A
2(6) Explanation- I, these three categories of landlords are
deemed to cultivate personally through such tenant. The
entitlement of terminating a tenancy under any one of these three
categories is contained in Section 31(3). In any of these three
cases, the moment the disability ceases i.e. that the land in
B
question no longer belongs to a minor, as he has become major,
or to a widow, as she has died or transferred her share with
permission under Section 63, or to a person whose mental or
physical disability ceases, one year is granted for such persons
to apply for resumption of the land on the ground that such
persons wish to personally cultivate the said land, pursuant to C
which an application for possession of land under Section 29
may then be made. In case this is done w ithin the time
prescribed, the tenant’s right to purchase does not fructify. It is
only when this is not done within the period of one year, the
postponed right of the tenant springs into being. [Para 15] [602-
D
D-H]
2.4 Prior to the Amendment Act of 1969, on a plain literal
reading of Section 32-F(1)(a), it is true that a tenant had to
exercise this right within a period of one year from the expiry
of the one year spoken of in Section 31(3) of the Act. Literally
speaking, therefore, even if the tenant does not know when the E
minor became major or when the widow died or transferred her
share, this right would cease on the expiry of one year. Realising
that this would cause immense hardship for want of knowledge
of a special fact which is only within the landlord’s ken, the
legislature stepped in and amended Section 32-F. [Para 16 and F
17] [603-A-C]
2.5 Paragraph 2 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons
indicates that an amnesty scheme is necessary, in that a large
number of tenants in the Bombay area who are minors have lost
the right to purchase as they have failed to give the necessary
G
intimation within the period laid down by statute. Under this
amnesty scheme, if a tenant held land from a landlord who was
a minor and who had obtained majority before the
commencement of the 1969 Amendment and no intimation had
been given, two years extra was given from the date of
commencement of that Act in which such intimation may be H
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A given. This statutory object, reflected in paragraph 2 of the
Statement of Objects and Reasons, is carried out by the proviso
to sub-section (1A) inserted by the 1969 Amendment Act into
Section 32-F. The words ‘and for enabling the tenant to exercise
the right of purchase, the landlord shall send an intimation to
the tenant of the fact that he has attained majority, before the
B
expiry of the period during which such landlord is entitled to
terminate the tenancy under Section 31, were inserted into sub
section (1)(a). The addition of these words into Section 32-F(1)(a)
would show that the legislature, in keeping with the object
sought to be achieved statutorily divesting the landlord of his
C title and handing over the land to the cultivating tenant, cannot
possibly be achieved unless a special fact within the knowledge
of the landlord alone is first intimated to the tenant, so that he
may then, with knowledge that the minor landlord has now turned
major, meaningfully exercise his right of purchase under the Act.
[Para 18, 19] [604-A-F]
D
2.6 The vast majority of cases which came to the notice
of the legislature were cases of landlords who were minor at the
time of the 1956 Amendment Act and who turned major only
thereafter. The amnesty scheme contained in sub-section (1A),
was, therefore, limited only to such cases. Unfortunately, the
E legislature, when it inserted words into sub-section (1)(a) of
Section 32-F, appears to have forgotten that these words will
govern the right of tenants which has been postponed on
account of a landlord’s disability. What appears to have been
missed is the fact that, apart from minors, there are two other
F categories mentioned in Section 32-F(1)(a), all of whom would
stand on the same footing insofar as the tenant is concerned. It
would be wholly anomalous for a tenant to be told that if his
landlord happened to be a minor who has attained majority later,
he must first be intimated of this fact before he can meaningfully
exercise his right of purchase; whereas to a tenant who is
G similarly situate when the landlord is a widow, in which case no
such intimation need be made, the tenant would suffer for no
fault of his as the tenant would have no knowledge of the date
of death of the widow (which is a special fact known only to her
family), such tenant’s right of purchase being extinguished by
H time. It seems that the draftsman of the 1969 Amendment was
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 575
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS.
overwhelmed with the amnesty scheme laid down in Section 32- A
F (1A), which then spilled over to the amendment made in Section
32-F(1)(a), thereby unintentionally leaving out the two other
categories of landlords, where the same intimation needs to be
made to the tenant, as the death of the widow and/or the ceasing
of disability are special facts known only to the landlord and his
B
family, just as in the case of a minor turning major. [Para 20]
[604-G-H; 605-A-C]
2.7 An absurd situation would be created by a literal reading
of Section 32-F(1)(a). The landlord being a widow is protected
until her death. After her death, one year is given to her
successors in interest to exercise the right of resumption. When C
this does not take place one year is granted from the expiry of
this first one year to the tenant to exercise his statutory right.
This cannot be done because the tenant does not know of the
death of the widow. As a result, this very land which was not
required by the landlord’s successors in interest for personal D
cultivation, goes back to the landlord under Section 32-P in
cases in which the landlord either has no land within the ceiling
limit or some land which does not exhaust the ceiling limit. This
anomaly indeed turns the entire scheme of agrarian reform on
its head. Thus, it is to be seen whether the language of Section
32-F can be added to or subtracted from, in order that the E
absurdity mentioned and the discrimination between persons
who are similarly situate be obviated. [Para 21] [605-D-F]
3. Given the fact that the object of the 1956 Amendment,
which is an agrarian reform legislation, and is to give the tiller
of the soil statutory title to land which such tiller cultivates; and, F
given the fact that the literal interpretation of Section 32-F(1)(a)
would be contrary to justice and reason and would lead to great
hardship qua persons who are similarly circumstanced; as also
to the absurdity of land going back to an absentee landlord when
he has lost the right of personal cultivation, in the teeth of the
object of the 1956 Amendment, the words “.. of the fact that he G
has attained majority..” are deleted. Without these words,
therefore, the landlord belonging to all three categories has to
send an intimation to the tenant, before the expiry of the period
during which such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy
under Section 31. [Para 36] [622-C-D] H
576 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh & Ors. [1955] 2 SCR
457 ; Ramaswamy Nadar v. State of Madras [1958]
SCR 739 ; State of Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat
Finance Co. & Anr. [1966] Supp. SCR 473 ; Budhan
Singh v. Nabi Bux [1970] 2 SCR 10 ; Commissioner
of Income Tax, Central Calcutta v. National Taj
B
Traders (1980) 1 SCC 370 : [1980] 2 SCR 268 ; K.P.
Verghese v. ITO (1981) 4 SCC 173 : [1982] 1 SCR
629 ; CIT v. J.H. Gotla (1985) 4 SCC 343 : [1985] 2
Suppl. SCR 711 ; State of Tamil Nadu v. Kodaikanal
Motor Union (P) Ltd. (1986) 3 SCC 91 : [1986] 2 SCR
C 927 ; Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohanlal
(1988) 2 SCC 513 : [1988] 3 SCR 384 ; Surjit Singh
Kalra v. Union of India (1991) 2 SCC 87 : [1991] 1
SCR 364 ; C.W.S. (India) Limited v. Commissioner of
Income Tax (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 296 : [1994] 2 SCR
247 ; Molar Mal v. Kay Iron Works (P) Ltd. (2000) 4
D
SCC 285 ; Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (2002) 7
SCC 273 : [2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 324 – referred to.
Grey v. Pearson (1857) LR 6 HL Cas 61 ; Salmon v.
Duncombe (1886) 11 AC 627 – referred to.
E 4. The law may recognise degrees of harm, but in so doing
the classification should never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive.
The Statement of the Objects and Reasons for the 1969
Amendment have been referred. Paragraph 2 thereof stated that
a large number of cases involving minor landlords had come to
the notice of the legislature, for which reason the amnesty
F scheme mentioned in sub-section (1A) of Section 32-F was
enacted. However, what was forgotten by the draftsman when
the addition to Section 32-F(1)(a) was made was the fact that
Section 32F(1)(a) referred to three categories of landlords and
not only one. The words added by the 1969 amendment thus
G gave relief to tenants only qua minor landlords and not the other
two categories. Obviously, the classification made in favour of
tenants of minor landlords as opposed to tenants of landlords of
the other two categories is a classification which is arbitrary in
nature. This being the case, such classification would ordinarily
have to be struck down as being violative of Article 14 of the
H Constitution of India. However, instead of striking down such
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 577
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS.
classification as a whole, what can be done is to strike down the A
words “..of the fact that he has attained majority..”, as a result
of which, what is added by the 1969 Amendment to Section 32-
F(1)(a) now ceases to be discriminatory, as it is applicable to
tenants of all three categories of landlords. Thus, in order to read
Section 32-F(1)(a) in conformity with Article 14, the words “..of
B
the fact that he has attained majority..” is eliminated so that the
intimation that is to be made by the landlord has to be made to
tenants of all the three categories of landlords covered by the
provision. [Para 39, 40, 44] [624-G-H; 627-A-D; 627-H; 628-
A]
Appa Narsappa v. Akubai Ganapati (1999) 4 SCC 453 C
– overruled.
Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti Narayan Chavan
(2008) 9 SCC 358 : [2008] 13 SCR 508 – partly
overruled.
Anna Bhau Magdum v. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai D
(1995) 5 SCC 243 : [1995] 2 Suppl. SCR 259 ; Sudam
Ganpat Kutwl v. Shevantabai Tukaram (2006) 7 SCC
200 : [2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 682 – distinguished.
Hiralal P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora
(2016) 10 SCC 165 : [2016] 9 SCR 515 ; Secretary, E
Mahatama Gandhi Mission v. Bhartiya Kamgar Sena
(2017) 4 SCC 449 ; D.S. Nakara v. Union of India
(1983) 1 SCC 305 : [ 1983] 2 SCR 165 – relied on.
5. The submission made based on Section 14(1)(a) that
since a tenant is bound to pay the rent every year before the F
31st May thereof, the tenant is bound to know that the person
to whom he is paying rent has since died and that, therefore,
knowledge cannot be brought in to the construction of Section
32-F need not detain this Court. On facts in the instant case,
the landlady was actually at Mumbai, whereas the tenant was at
Ratnagiri. Also, Section 14(1)(b) makes it clear that in case the G
tenant fails to pay rent before the 31 st May of every year, the
landlord must first give a three months’ notice in writing
informing the tenant that he has not so paid the rent, within which
period the tenant is given time to remedy the breach. On facts,
there is nothing to show that any such notice was given. The H
578 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A other submission that in the agricultural village world everyone
knows about everybody else and that, therefore, it may be
assumed that a villager at Ratnagiri will know about his
landlord’s death equally cannot apply on the facts of this case
as the landlord lived and died in Mumbai. The other submission
about the reverse situation obtaining today as opposed to the
B
situation obtaining in 1956, namely, that it is tenants who are
now well off and landlords who are poor is again a perception
which has no bearing either on the facts of this case or the law
that needs to be laid down. [Para 49] [629-G-H; 630-A-C]
6. The judgment of the High Court is set aside. As a
C result, the tenant’s intimation of purchase of 2008 will now be
taken on record by the authorities under the Act, who may now
proceed under the Act to determine purchase price and its
payment consequent upon which the postponed right of the
tenant in this case to own the land will then come into being upon
D the statutory conditions being met. [Para 50] [630-F-G]
R.L. Arora v Union of India [1964] 6 SCR 784 ; Shri
Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R. Tendolkar
[1959] SCR 279 ; In Re Special Courts Bill 1978
(1979) 1 SCC 380 : [1979] 2 SCR 476 ; Shayara
E Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1 : [ 2017] 7
SCR 797 ; Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. State of
Bombay AIR 1959 SC 459 : [1959] Suppl. SCR 489 ;
Amrit Bhikaji Kale v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade
(1983) 3 SCC 437 : [1983] 3 SCR 237 – referred to.
F Case Law Reference
[1959] Suppl. SCR 459 referred to Para 10
[1983] 3 SCR 237 referred to Para 12
[1955] 2 SCR 457 referred to Para 24
G
[1958] SCR 739 referred to Para 25
[1966] Supp. SCR 473 referred to Para 26
[1970] 2 SCR 10 referred to Para 27
H [1980] 2 SCR 268 referred to Para 28
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 579
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS.
[1982] 1 SCR 629 referred to Para 29 A
[1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 711 referred to Para 30
[1986] 2 SCR 927 referred to Para 30
[1988] 3 SCR 384 referred to Para 31
B
[1991] 1 SCR 364 referred to Para 32
[1994] 2 SCR 247 referred to Para 33
(2000) 4 SCC 285 referred to Para 34
C
[2002] 2 Suppl. SCR 324 referred to Para 35
[1964] 6 SCR 784 referred to Para 37
[1959] SCR 279 referred to Para 38
[1979] 2 SCR 476 referred to Para 39 D
[2017] 7 SCR 797 referred to Para 41
[2016] 9 SCR 515 relied on Para 42
(2017) 4 SCC 449 relied on Para 43 E
[1983] 2 SCR 165 relied on Para 43
[1995] 2 Suppl. SCR 259 distinguished Para 44
(1999) 4 SCC 453 overruled Para 46, 50(iii)
F
[2006] 4 Suppl. SCR 682 distinguished Para 47, 50(iii)
[2008] 13 SCR 508 partly overruled Para 48, 50(iii)
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 11774
of 2018. G
From the Judgment and Order dated 01.08.2014 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 10304 of 2013.
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 11775-11798 of 2018. H
580 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A Aniruddha Joshi, Mrs. Shubhangi Tuli, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ajit S. Bhasme, Sr. Adv., Pankaj Kumar Mishra, Shashank
Mangle, A. Bhasme, Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, Advs. for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
R. F. NARIMAN, J.
1. This case has been referred to a Three Judge Bench by a
detailed judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported as Vasant
Ganpat Padave v. Anant Mahadev Sawant (2019) 2 SCC 788. The
C relevant facts that are necessary for determination of the controversy
before us are set out in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the referral order as
follows:
“3. One Balwant Sawant was landlord of Survey No. 92/2,
corresponding to new Survey No. 31 Hissa No. 2/10,
admeasuring about 0.01.3 H.R. at Village Padavewadi, Taluka
D & District Ratnagiri. Balwant Sawant died on 10-5-1950 leaving
behind Smt Indirabai Balwant Sawant, his widow as his legal heir
and representative. Smt Indirabai Balwant Sawant, widow
became the owner of the said property. Her name was mutated
in the revenue records. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural
E Lands Act, 1948 was amended by Act 15 of 1957. Section 32
as amended provided that on 1-4-1957 (Tillers’ Day), every
tenant shall be deemed to have purchased from the landlord free
from all encumbrances the land held by him as a tenant. The
predecessor of the appellants were tenants prior to 1956-1957
i.e. prior to 1-4-1957. The proceedings for declaring the appellants
F as purchaser under Section 32-G were initiated during the lifetime
of the landlady, Smt Indirabai Balwant Sawant but the mutation
Entry No. 1341 recorded that since landlady Indirabai Balwant
Sawant is a widow, the proceedings as contemplated under
Section 32-G are suspended. On 12-5-1975, Smt Indirabai
Balwant Sawant executed last will and testament in favour of
G
Anant Mahadev Sawant, Respondent 1. Smt Indirabai Balwant
Sawant died on 7-5-1999. The name of Respondent 1 was
mutated in the revenue records on 29-2-2000, with regard to
which no notice was issued to the appellants, hence they were
not aware of either the death of Indirabai or mutation in favour
H of Respondent 1.
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 581
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
4. In the year 2008, when the appellants came to know that the A
landlady has died and in her place, name of Respondent 1 has
been mutated, they filed an application on 5-9-2008 before
Respondent 2 — Additional Tahsildar & A.L.T. Ratnagiri,
Maharashtra for fixing the purchase price under Section 32-G
of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
B
(hereinafter referred to as “the 1948 Act”). Respondent 1 filed
reply and opposed the said application. Respondent 2 allowed the
application of the appellants by order dated 9-9-2011. Respondent
2 held that predecessors of the appellants were tenants prior to
1956-1957. Proceedings under Section 32-G for declaring the
appellants as purchasers were initiated during the lifetime of the C
landlady and the same were suspended on 8-1-1964 during the
lifetime of the landlady being a widow. Respondent 2 fixed the
purchase price and directed the appellants to deposit the same
to enable issue of sale certificate in favour of the appellants.
Aggrieved against the order dated 9-9-2011, Respondent 1 filed
D
an appeal under Section 74 of the 1948 Act before Respondent
3, Sub-Divisional Officer, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra. Respondent 3
allowed the appeal vide its order dated 8-1-2013. Respondent 3
held that the appellant ought to have issued notice under Section
32-F within the time as prescribed and no notice having been
issued within the time as prescribed, the appellants have lost right E
of purchase.
5. The appellants, aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional
Officer, filed a revision application before the Maharashtra
Revenue Tribunal. There were other revisions filed by several
other tenants who were aggrieved by the order of the Sub- F
Divisional Officer. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by a
common order dated 20-4-2013 dismissed the revisions and
confirmed the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that applicants were under
legal obligation to give intimation expressing their desire to
purchase within time stipulated under Section 32-F, which having G
not been given, no right of purchase is available to applicants.
Aggrieved against the judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue
Tribunal, writ petitions were filed by the appellants and several
other similarly situated tenants. All the writ petitions were
dismissed by common judgment dated 1-8-2014 [Arjun Hari H
582 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A Kamble v. Anant Mahadev Sawant, 2014 SCC OnLine Bom
4931] of the High Court, against which judgment, these appeals
have been filed.”
2. After setting out various provisions of the Maharashtra
Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as
B “the Act”), as amended, and after referring to various judgments of
this Court dealing, in particular, with Section 32-F of the Act, the
Division Bench then stated:
“30. The ratio of the abovenoted judgments can be restated in
the following words:
C 30.1. For a landlord suffering from a disability on the Tillers’ Day
i.e. 1-4-1957, the deemed purchase shall be suspended.
30.2. Landlord suffering from a disability has a right under
Section 31(3) of the Act to give notice of termination of tenancy
and file an application for possession.
D
30.3. Under Section 31(3), a minor, within one year from the
date on which he attains majority; a successor-in-title of a widow
within one year from the date on which her interest in the land
ceases to exist; and landlord within one year from the date on
which his/her mental or physical disability ceases to exist, can
E also give an application for termination of tenancy and possession.
30.4. Under Section 32-F, tenant has right to purchase where
landlord was minor or a widow or a person subject to mental or
physical disability within one year from the expiry of the period
during which such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy
F under Section 31.
30.5. The tenant, in event, does not exercise his right of purchase
within the period as prescribed under Section 32-F(1)(a), his/her
right to purchase shall be lost.
31. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that the landlady
G died on 7-5-1999 and within one year thereafter her successor-
in-title did not exercise his right under Section 31(3) and thereafter
within one year tenant has not given any intimation for purchase
as contemplated by Section 32-F. The question to be answered
is as to whether in the above facts, the Sub-Divisional Officer,
H Revenue Tribunal as well as the High Court were right in their
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 583
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
conclusion that right of the tenant i.e. the appellant has lost, he A
having not issued any intimation for purchase of the land within
one year from expiry of the period as contemplated under Section
31(3).
32. The ratio of this Court as noticed above, especially in the
judgments of this Court in Appa Narsappa Magdum [Appa B
Narsappa Magdum v. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar, (1999) 4
SCC 443] , Sudam Ganpat Kutwal [Sudam Ganpat Kutwal v.
Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar, (2006) 7 SCC 200] and
Tukaram Maruti Chavan [Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti
Narayan Chavan, (2008) 9 SCC 358] , clearly supports the
submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the C
appellants having not exercised their right to purchase under
Section 32-F(1) read with Section 32-F(1-A) within the time
prescribed, the right of purchase of the tenant is lost. But there
is one aspect of the matter which needs to be noted and has not
been considered in the above judgments rendered by two-Judge D
Benches of this Court which we shall notice hereinafter.”
The Division Bench then laid emphasis upon the Statement of
Objects and Reasons to the 1969 Amendment of the 1948 Act and
opined:
“37. Amendment in Section 32-F(1)(a) added by Act 49 of 1969 E
expressly covered a case of landlord who was minor and has
attained majority. Intimation by a minor landlord who has attained
majority has been made a statutory obligation of the landlord so
that tenant may exercise his right of purchase. The other two
categories which are a widow or a person subject to mental or F
physical disability have not been expressly included in the
amendment incorporated by Act 49 of 1969. The Statement of
Objects and Reasons of the amendment given in 1969 as well
as the express provisions of such amendment are for the purposes
and object to enable the tenant to exercise right of purchase.
When for one category of landlord i.e. minor it is mandated that G
he will intimate the tenant after he attained the majority so that
tenant may be enabled to exercise the right of purchase, we are
of the view that the same object has to be read in two other
categories of landlord that is the successor-in-title of a widow
and a landlord whose mental or physical disability has been H
584 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A ceased. When the legislative object is to facilitate a tenant of a
disabled landlord after cessation of disability to exercise right of
purchase, the same benefit needs to be extended to other two
categories of disabled landlord. We do not find any distinction in
three categories of disabled landlords nor tenant of a landlord
who was a minor can be put on any higher footing as compared
B
to other landlords suffering from the above two disabilities. The
question may be asked that amendment only expressly included
the landlord who has attained majority to send intimation and the
legislature consciously did not include the other two categories
of landlord i.e. successor-in-interest of a widow and landlord of
C a mental and physical disability ceases to exist. The Objects and
Reasons and express amendment made by Act 49 of 1969 were
with a view to enable the tenant to exercise his right of purchase.
The said legislative intendment is to be extended to all tenants
of landlords who were suffering from disability on the Tillers’
Day, whether successor-in-title of a widow or a landlord whose
D
mental or physical disability ceases. All the three categories of
tenants should be extended the same benefit and provision should
be interpreted so that all tenants may be enabled to exercise their
right of purchase effectively and in real sense.
38. As in the present case, the tenant’s case is that he was
E unaware of the death of the landlady since for the last several
years she was living in Bombay, the date of knowledge of death
of the landlady cannot be said to be an irrelevant factor and
unless the tenant is aware of the death of landlady or in case of
landlord suffering from physical or mental disability, how he will
F exercise his right of purchase, is an important question. The 1948
Act and the amendments made by the 1969 Act were with intent
to facilitate tenants to exercise their right. The amendments by
Act 15 of 1957 was agrarian reform making tillers of the soil
the owners of the land which was done to achieve the object of
making all tillers of the soil as owners of the land. While
G interpreting the provisions of Section 32-F(1-A) as well as Section
31(3), the purpose and object of the 1948 Act, amendments made
therein from time to time cannot be lost sight off.
39. When Section 32-F of the 1948 Act gives right to purchase
to a tenant whose landlord was suffering from a disability on
H Tillers’ Day, the exercise of right to purchase by such tenant has
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 585
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
to be interpreted in a manner so as to make the exercise of right A
meaningful and effective. The abovesaid right cannot be defeated
on the ground that it was not exercised within the period
prescribed when the tenant is unaware as to when the period
has begun.
40. The period prescribed for exercising the right to purchase is B
not a period of limitation but a reasonable period prescribed for
the exercise of a right. The knowledge of cessation of disability
of landlord by the tenant can only be commencement of the
period prescribed.
41. When a statute gives a right to a tenant, statute needs to be C
interpreted in a manner so as to make the right workable,
effective and meaningful. Such right cannot be defeated unless
it is proved that tenant, even after knowing that disability has
ceased, does not exercise his right within the period prescribed.
42. A two-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Appa D
Narsappa Magdum [Appa Narsappa Magdum v. Akubai
Ganapati Nimbalkar, (1999) 4 SCC 443] has expressly rejected
the submission that tenant had no intimation of the death of
landlady. Further judgments of this Court in Sudam Ganpat
Kutwal [Sudam Ganpat Kutwal v. Shevantabai Tukaram E
Gulumkar, (2006) 7 SCC 200] and Tukaram Maruti Chavan
[Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti Narayan Chavan, (2008)
9 SCC 358] also laid down the same ratio. The judgments in the
above three cases were rendered by the two-Judge Benches in
which cases the amendments made by Act 49 of 1969 were
neither raised nor considered. We, thus, are of the view that the F
ratio laid down in the above cases needs to be reconsidered and
explained in view of the object and purpose for which
amendments were made in Section 32-F(1)(a) by Act 49 of 1969
as noticed above. We, thus, refer to the following questions for
consideration of a larger Bench: G
42.1. (1) Whether the object and purpose of amendment made
in Section 32-F(1)(a) by Act 49 of 1969 is also relevant and
applicable for exercise of right to purchase by a tenant of landlord
who was widow or suffering from mental and physical disability
on Tillers’ Day? H
586 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A 42.2. (2) Whether the successor-in-interest of a widow is also
obliged to send an intimation to the tenant of cessation of interest
of the widow to enable the tenant to exercise his right of
purchase.
42.3. (3) In the event the answer to above Question (1) or (2)
B is in the affirmative, whether decision of this Court in Appa
Narsappa Magdum [Appa Narsappa Magdum v. Akubai
Ganapati Nimbalkar, (1999) 4 SCC 443] , Sudam Ganpat
Kutwal [Sudam Ganpat Kutwal v. Shevantabai Tukaram
Gulumkar, (2006) 7 SCC 200] and Tukaram Maruti Chavan
[Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti Narayan Chavan, (2008)
C 9 SCC 358] needs reconsideration and explanation.
43. Let the papers be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice
for constituting a larger Bench. In the meantime, we direct that
the parties shall maintain the status quo.”
D 3. We have heard Shri Aniruddha Joshi, learned Advocate for
the Appellant and Shri Ajit S. Bhasme, learned Senior Advocate for
the Respondent. Shri Joshi painstakingly took us through various
provisions of the 1948 Act and was at pains to point out that it was a
social welfare legislation enacted in furtherance of an Agrarian Reform
Programme and was, therefore, covered by Article 31A of the
E Constitution of India. He laid great emphasis, in particular, upon the
Amendment Acts of 1956 and 1969. By the first mentioned Amendment
Act, the statutory scheme was to divest an absentee landlord of his
title and vest title directly in the cultivating tenant of agricultural land.
The landlord was given only a limited right to ask for resumption of his
F land provided certain very stringent conditions were met, provided that
such application was made on or before Tillers’ Day i.e. 1st April, 1957.
He argued that in the case of three categories of persons, namely,
widows, minors and persons suffering from a disability, the right of the
cultivating tenant to become owner was only postponed, and Section
32-F must be read narrowly so as not to interfere with the statutory
G
right of purchase of the cultivating tenant. The 1969 Amendment made
this clear, but was limited only to one of the three categories, namely,
minors. According to him, therefore, to sub-serve the object sought to
be achieved by the 1956 Amendment, it is clear that whether a
cultivating tenant is a tenant under a minor on the one hand, or a widow
H or a person with a disability on the other, should make no difference to
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 587
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
the fact that once the landlord’s disability ceases, the tenant must first A
know that such disability has ceased before he can meaningfully exercise
the statutory right given to him within the period prescribed. According
to him, all the Division Bench Judgments of this Court, which have held
that such knowledge is immaterial, are wrong in law and need to be
overruled. He stated that a manifestly absurd result would be reached B
if we were to so construe Section 32-F of the Act. According to him,
the one year within which the cultivating tenant may exercise his
statutory right of purchase is only after the period of disability has
ceased, in that, for example, the widow has died and one year has
elapsed from the date of her death within which she has not exercised
any right to resume the land. If the Division Bench Judgments of this C
Court are correct, then since the period of one year from this date has
also elapsed for the reason that the tenant had no knowledge of the
widow’s death and, therefore, was not able to apply in time, the result
would be that such lands would then have to be distributed under Section
32-P, under which the first preference is given again to the absentee D
landlord who may then be given back this land to the extent and in the
manner provided by the Act. This would turn the Object of the 1956
Amendment on its head, as an absentee landlord would, after not
availing of any right to resumption, get back agricultural land from a
cultivating tenant only because the cultivating tenant had no knowledge
of a fact which was exclusively within the landlord’s domain. According E
to him, therefore, applying the golden rule of interpretation, if the literal
reading of Section 32-F were to lead to this absurd result, it is possible
for us as interpreters of the law to add or subtract words which would
remove this absurdity, which can only be the counting of the one year
period, so far as the cultivating tenant is concerned, from the date of F
knowledge of the death of the widow. He cited a number of judgments
in support of this proposition. He also argued that in any event, if Section
32-F were to be construed literally, it would violate Article 14 as it would
discriminate between cultivating tenants who are similarly situate,
namely, tenants whose statutory right to become owners has been
G
postponed on account of the landlord’s disability. Whereas in the case
of minors, the landlord is bound to intimate the tenant of the date on
which such minor attains majority, so that he may exercise his statutory
right in a meaningful way, there is no such obligation on a widow’s
successors to inform the tenant of the death of the widow, resulting in
persons who are similarly situate being deprived of their statutory right H
588 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A for no fault of theirs, and contrary to the Object sought to be achieved
by the 1956 Amendment.
4. On the other hand, Shri Ajit Bhasme, took us through various
provisions of the Act and argued that the rent by a cultivating tenant
needs to be paid at least annually by 31st May every year, which would
B enable the cultivating tenant to know that his landlady widow has died,
as otherwise rent paid to a dead person cannot be credited to such
person’s account. He also made an emotional appeal to the Court that
in all these cases, most landlords and tenants were villagers who would
definitely come to know of a widow’s death by word of mouth, given
Indian village society. On law, he argued that the Division Bench
C
judgments were correct. Section 32-F contains a non-obstante clause,
which must be given full effect. Further, the legislature is free to
recognise degrees of harm and can, therefore, pick up one class among
three classes, where the need is felt most, for protection. He referred
to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act of
D 1969 and argued that the legislature was cognizant of the fact that a
large number of cases relating to minors had come to their knowledge,
which is why the legislature alleviated the rigor of the Section in so far
as minor landlords were concerned. He also argued that times and clime
had changed, and the impoverished tenant of yesterday is the rich tenant
of today, as opposed to the impoverished landlord who continues to
E remain so. According to him, the literal rule of statutory interpretation
must apply, and it is not possible for us to add or subtract words in
Section 32-F when the meaning is plain and unambiguous. He then dealt
with some of the judgments that were cited by Shri Joshi and attempted
to distinguish them.
F 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is important
to first advert to the Scheme of the 1948 Act. Section 2(6) refers to
persons who cultivate personally. Explanation - I is important and is
set out hereinbelow:
“2. Definitions.-In this Act, unless there is anything repugnant
G in the subject or context,
xxx xxx xxx
(6) “to cultivate personally”…
Explanation I – A widow or a minor, or a person who is subject
H to physical or mental disability, or a serving member of the armed
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 589
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
forces shall be deemed to cultivate the land personally if such A
land is cultivated by servants, or by hired labour, or through
tenants.”
The deeming provision contained in Explanation I makes it clear
that the four categories mentioned are deemed to cultivate land
personally even if such land is cultivated through tenants. B
6. Under Section 2(8), “land” is defined as referring to land which
is used for agricultural purposes. Under Section 2(18), “tenant” includes
three categories of persons – deemed tenants under Section 4, protected
tenants and permanent tenants, as defined. Under Section 4 of the Act,
a person who cultivates lawfully any land belonging to another person C
shall be deemed to be a tenant if such land is not cultivated personally
by the owner or a member of his family or by a servant on wages
payable in cash or kind or by a mortgagee in possession. Under Section
4-B tenancies cannot be terminated merely on the ground that the period
fixed by an agreement has expired. Section 31 is important and is set
out hereinbelow:- D
“31. Landlord’s right to terminate tenancy for personal
cultivation and non-agricultural purpose.—
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 14 and
30 but subject to Sections 31-A to 31-D (both inclusive),
E
a landlord (not being a landlord within the meaning of
Chapter III-AA) may, after giving notice and making
an application for possession as provided in sub-section
(2), terminate the tenancy of any land (except a
permanent tenancy), if the landlord bona fide requires
the land for any of the following purposes:- F
(a) for cultivating personally, or
(b) for any non-agricultural purpose.
(2) The notice required to be given under sub-section (1)
shall be in writing, shall state the purpose for which the
G
landlord requires the land and shall be served on the
tenant on or before the 31st day of December, 1956. A
copy of such notice shall, at the same time, be sent to
the Mamlatdar. An application for possession under
Section 29 shall be made to the Mamlatdar on or before
the 31st day of March, 1957. H
590 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A (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
B
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;
C
(iii) within one year from the date on which mental or
physical disability ceases to exist; and
(iv) ***
D Provided that where a person of such category is a member of
a joint family, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply if
at least one member of the joint family is outside the categories
mentioned in this sub-section unless before the 31st day of
March, 1958 the share of such person in the joint family has been
separated by metes and bounds and the Mamlatdar on inquiry is
E
satisfied that the share of such person in the land is separated,
having regard to the area, assessment, classification and value
of the land, in the same proportion as the share of that person in
the entire joint family property, and not in a large proportion.”
F 7. Under Section 31-A, the right of a landlord to terminate a
tenancy in order to cultivate the land personally himself is subjected to
very stringent conditions. He can take possession of the land leased
only to the extent of the ceiling area, provided the income that is obtained
from such land is the principal source of income for his maintenance,
and not otherwise. If more tenancies than one are held under the same
G landlord, then the landlord is competent to terminate only such tenancies
which are shortest in point of duration. Under Section 31-B, a tenancy
can only be terminated to the extent of half the area of the land leased
to the tenant and no more. Section 32 is the Section by which agrarian
reform, as mentioned hereinabove, is actually achieved. This Section
H is important and is set out hereinbelow:
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 591
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
“32. Tenants deemed to have purchased land on tillers’ day A
–
(1) On the first day of April 1957 (hereinafter referred to
as “the tillers day”) every tenant shall, subject to the
other provisions of this section and the provisions of the
next succeeding sections, be deemed to have purchased B
from his landlord, free of all encumbrances subsisting
thereon on the said day, the land held by him as tenant,
if, –
(a) Such tenant is a permanent tenant thereof and
cultivates land personally; C
(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 under Section 31; or
(ii) notice has been given under Section 31, but the landlord D
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 grounds specified in Section 14, or has so terminated E
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 land:
Provided that if an application made by the landlord under Section
29 for obtaining possession of the land has been rejected by the F
Mamlatdar or by the Collector in appeal or in revision by the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal under the provisions of this Act,
the tenant shall be deemed to have purchased the land on the
date on which the final order of rejection is passed. The date
on which the final order of rejection is passed is hereinafter
referred to as “the postponed date”. G
Provided further that the tenant of a landlord who is entitled to
the benefit of the proviso to sub-section (3) of Section 31 shall
be deemed to have purchased the land on the 1st day of April
1958, if no separation of his share has been effected before the
date mentioned in that proviso. H
592 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A (1A) (a) Where a tenant, on account of his eviction from the
land by the landlord, before the 1st day of April, 1957, is not in
possession of the land on the said date but has made or makes
an application for possession of the land under sub-section (1)
of Section 29 within the period specified in that sub-section, then
if the application is allowed by the Mamlatdar, or as the case
B
may be, in appeal by the Collector or in revision by the
Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, he shall be deemed to have
purchased the land on the date on which the final order allowing
the application is passed.
(b) Where such tenant has not made an application, for
C
possession within the period specified in sub-section (1) of Section
29 or the application made by him is finally rejected under this
Act, and the land is held by any other person as tenant on the
expiry of the said period or on the date of the final rejection of
the application, such other person shall be deemed to have
D purchased the land on the date of the expiry of the said period
or as the case may be, on the date of the final rejection of the
application.
(1B) Where a tenant who was in possession on the appointed
day and who on account of his being dispossessed before the
E 1st day of April 1957 otherwise than in the manner and by an
order of the Tahsildar as provided in Section 29, is not in
possession of the land on the said date and the land is in the
possession of the landlord or his successor-in-interest on the 31 st
day of July 1969 and the land is not put to a non-agricultural use
on or before the last mentioned date, then, the Tahsildar shall,
F
notwithstanding anything contained in the said Section 29, either
suo motu or on the application of the tenant, hold an inquiry and
direct that such land shall be taken from the possession of the
landlord or, as the case may be, his successor-in-interest, and
shall be restored to the tenant; and thereafter, the provisions of
G this Section and Section 32-A to 32-R(both inclusive) shall, in so
far as they may be applicable, apply thereto, subject to the
modification that the tenant shall be deemed to have purchased
the land on the date on which the land is restored to him.
Provided that, the tenant shall be entitled to restoration of the
H land under this sub-section only if he undertakes to cultivate the
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 593
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
land personally and of so much thereof as together with the other A
land held by him as owner or tenant shall not exceed the ceiling
area.
Explanation - In this sub-section, “successor-in-interest” means
a person who acquires the interest by testamentary disposition
or devolution on death.” B
Section 32-F is the Section that falls for construction in the
present case and is set out in toto hereinbelow:
“32-F. Right of tenant to purchase where landlord is minor,
etc.— C
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the preceding
sections,—
(a) where the landlord is a minor, or a widow, or a person
subject to any mental or physical disability, the tenant
D
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 terminate the tenancy
under Section 31 and for enabling the tenant to exercise
the right of purchase, the landlord shall send an
intimation to the tenant of the fact that he has attained E
majority, before the expiry of the period during which
such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under
Section 31:
Provided that where a person of such category is a
F
member of a joint family, the provisions of this sub-
section shall not apply if at least one member of the joint
family is outside the categories mentioned in this sub-
section unless before the 31st day of March 1958 the
share of such person in the joint family has been
separated by metes and bounds and the Mamlatdar on G
inquiry is satisfied that the share of such person in the
land is separated, having regard to the area, assessment,
classification and value of the land, in the same
proportion as the share of that person in the entire joint
family property and not in a larger proportion. H
594 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A (b) where the tenant is a minor, or a widow, or a person
subject to any mental or physical disability or a serving
member of the armed forces, then subject to the
provisions of clause (a), the right to purchase land under
Section 32 may be exercised, -
B (i) By the minor within one year, from the date on
which he attains majority;
(ii) By the successor-in-title of the widow within one
year from the date on which her interest in the land
ceases to exist;
C
(iii) Within one year from the date on which the mental
or physical disability of the tenant ceases to exist;
(iv) Within one year from the date on which the tenant
ceases to be a serving member of the armed forces:
D Provided that where a person of such category is a member of
a joint family, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply if
at least one member of the joint family is outside the categories
mentioned in this sub-section unless before the 31st day of March,
1958 the share of such person in the joint family has been
separated by metes and bounds and the Mamlatdar on inquiry is
E
satisfied that the share of such person in the land is separated,
having regard to the area, assessment, classification and value
of the land, in the same proportion as the share of that person in
the entire joint family property, and not in a larger proportion.
(1-A) A tenant desirous of exercising the right conferred on him
F
under sub-section (1) shall give an intimation in that behalf to
the landlord and the Tribunal in the prescribed manner within the
period specified in that sub-section:
Provided that, if a tenant holding land from a landlord (who was
a minor and has attained majority before the commencement of
G
the Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Laws (Amendment) Act,
1969) has not given intimation as required by this sub-section but
being in possession of the land on such commencement is
desirous of exercising the right conferred upon him under sub-
section (1), he may give such intimation within a period of two
H years from the commencement of that Act.
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 595
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
(2) The provisions of Sections 32 to 32-E (both inclusive) and A
Sections 32-G to 32-R (both inclusive) shall, so far as may be
applicable, apply to such purchase”
8. Section 32-G is also important, in that, it is only after notice to
the tenant that the price of the land to be paid by the tenant to the
erstwhile landlord is then determined. The relevant sub-sections of this B
Section states as follows:
“32G. Tribunal to issue notice and determine price of land
to be paid by tenants. –
(1) As soon as may be after the tillers’ day the Tribunal
shall publish or cause to be published a public notice in C
the prescribed form in each village within its jurisdiction
calling upon, –
(a) all tenants who under Section 32 are deemed to have
purchased the lands,
(b) all landlords of such lands, and D
(c) all other persons interested therein,
to appear before it on the date specified in the
notice. The Tribunal shall issue a notice individually
to each such tenant, landlord and also, as far as
practicable, other person calling upon each of them E
to appear before it on the date specified in the public
notice.
(2) The Tribunal shall record in the prescribed manner the
statement of the tenant whether he is or is not willing
to purchase the land held by him as a tenant. F
(3) Where any tenant fails to appear or makes a statement
that he is not willing to purchase the land, the Tribunal
shall by an order in writing declare that such tenant is
not willing to purchase the land and that the purchase
is ineffective:
G
Provided that if such order is passed in default of the
appearance of any party, the Tribunal shall communicate
such order to the parties and any party on whose default
the order was passed may within 60 days from the date
on which the order was communicated to him apply for
the review of the same. H
596 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A xxx xxx xxx
(5) 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 determine the
price of the land.”
B 9. Under Section 32-M, a purchase by a tenant is ineffective on
his failure to pay purchase price, as a result of which land shall then
be at the disposal of the Tribunal to be disposed in the manner set out
in Section 32-P. Under Section 32-O, in respect of any tenancy created
after Tillers’ Day, such tenant cultivating personally shall be entitled,
C within one year from the commencement of such tenancy, to purchase
from the landlord the land held by him to the extent of the ceiling area
permissible. This can only be done if the tenant gives an intimation in
that behalf to the landlord and the Tribunal within the period prescribed.
Section 32-P is also important and is set out hereinbelow:
D “32P. Power of Tribunal to resume and dispose of land not
purchased by tenant. –
(1) Where the purchase of any land by tenant under Section
32 becomes ineffective under Sections 32-G or 32-M
or where a tenant fails to exercise the right to purchase
E the land held by him within the specified period under
Sections 32F, 32O, 33C or 43-1D the Tribunal may suo
motu or on an application made on this behalf land in
case other than those in which the purchase has become
ineffective by reason of Section 32-G or 32-M, after
holding a formal inquiry direct that the land shall be
F disposed of in the manner provided in sub-section (2).
(2) Such direction shall provide –
(a) that the former tenant be summarily evicted;
(b) that the land shall, subject to the provisions of Section
G 15, be surrendered to the former landlord;
(c) that if the entire land or any portion thereof cannot
be surrendered in accordance with the provisions of
Section 15, the entire land or such portion thereof,
as the case may be, notwithstanding that it is a
H fragment, shall be disposed of by sale to any person
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 597
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
in the following order of priority (hereinafter called A
“the priority list”):-
(i) a co-operative farming society the members of
which are agricultural labourers, landless persons or
small holders or a combination of such persons;
(ii) agricultural labourers; B
(iii) landless persons;
(iv) small holders;
(v) a co-operative farming society of agriculturists (other
than small holders) who hold either as owner or
tenant or partly as owner and partly as tenant, C
landless in area than an economic holding and who
is an artisans;
(vi) an agriculturist (other than a small holder) who holds
either as owner or tenant as partly as owner and
partly as tenant landless in area than an economic D
holding and who are artisan;
(vii) any other co-operative farming society;
(viii) any agriculturist who holds either as owner or tenant
or partly as owner and partly as tenant land larger
in area than an economic holding but less in area E
than the ceiling area;
(ix) any person, not being an agriculturist, who intends
to take to the profession of agriculture:
Provided that the State Government may, by notification in the
Official Gazette give in relation to such local areas as it may F
specify, such priority in the above order as it thinks fit to any
class or person who, by reason of the acquisition of their land
for any development project approved for the purpose by the
State Government have been displaced, and require to be re-
settled.”
G
10. In Sri Ram Ram Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay AIR
1959 SC 459, the 1956 Amendment to the Tenancy and Agricultural
Lands Act came up for consideration. One of the arguments made was
that since the landlord’s right was not extinguished statutorily on Tillers’
Day, the said Act was not protected by Article 31A. This argument
was negatived holding: H
598 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A “41. These observations were confined to suspension of the right
of management of the estate and not to a suspension of the title
to the estate. Apart from the question whether the suspension
of the title to the estate for a time, definite or indefinite would
amount to a modification of a right in the estate within the
B meaning of Article 31-A(1)(a), the position as it obtains in this
case is that there is no suspension of the title of the landlord at
all. The title of the landlord to the land passes immediately to
the tenant on the tiller’s day and there is a completed purchase
or sale thereof as between the landlord and the tenant. The tenant
is no doubt given a locus penitentiae and an option of declaring
C whether he is or is not willing to purchase the land held by him
as a tenant. If he fails to appear or makes a statement that he is
not willing to purchase the land, the Tribunal shall by an order in
writing declare that such tenant is not willing to purchase the land
and that the purchase is ineffective. It is only by such a declaration
D by the Tribunal that the purchase becomes ineffective. If no such
declaration is made by the Tribunal the purchase would stand as
statutorily effected on the tiller’s day and will continue to be
operative, the only obligation on the tenant then being the payment
of price in the mode determined by the Tribunal. If the tenant
commits default in the payment of such price either in lump or
E by instalments as determined by the Tribunal, Section 32-M
declares the purchase to be ineffective but in that event the land
shall then be at the disposal of the Collector to be disposed of
by him in the manner provided therein. Here also the purchase
continues to be effective as from the tiller’s day until such default
F is committed and there is no question of a conditional purchase
or sale taking place between the landlord and tenant. The title
to the land which was vested originally in the landlord passes to
the tenant on the tiller’s day or the alternative period prescribed
in that behalf. This title is defeasable only in the event of the
tenant failing to appear or making a statement that he is not
G
willing to purchase the land or committing default in payment of
the price thereof as determined by the Tribunal. The tenant gets
a vested interest in the land defeasable only in either of those
cases and it cannot, therefore, be said that the title of landlord
to the land is suspended for any period definite or indefinite. If
H that is so, there is an extinguishment or in any event a modification
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 599
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
of the landlord’s right in the estate well within the meaning of A
those words as used in Article 31-A(1)(a).”
11. Importantly, the judgment also referred to the right of the
tenant to purchase land where the landlord is a minor or a widow or a
person subject to a mental or physical disability, and the Court stated
that such right is postponed till one year after the cessation of disability. B
12. This judgment was followed in Amrit Bhikaji Kale v.
Kashinath Janardhan Trade (1983) 3 SCC 437, the Court holding:
“6. The Tenancy Act was comprehensively amended by
Amending Act 15 of 1957. The amendment brought in a
revolutionary measure of agrarian reforms making tiller of the C
soil the owner of the land. This was done to achieve the object
of removing all intermediaries between tillers of the soil and the
State. Section 32 provides that by mere operation of law, every
tenant of agricultural land situated in the area to which the Act
applies shall become by the operation of law, the owner thereof.
He is declared to be a deemed purchaser without anything more D
on his part. A Constitution Bench of this court in Sri Ram Ram
Narain Medhi v. State of Bombay [1959 Supp 1 SCR 489, 518-
19 : AIR 1959 SC 459 : 1959 SCJ 679] held that:
“The title of the landlord to the land passes immediately to
the tenant on the tillers’ day and there is a completed purchase E
or sale thereof as between the landlord and the tenant. The
title of the land which was vested originally in the landlord
passes to the tenant on the tillers’ day and this title is defeasible
only in the event of the tenant failing to appear or making a
statement that he is not willing to purchase the land or commit
default in payment of the price thereto as determined by the F
Tribunal.”
Therefore, it is unquestionably established that on the tillers’ day,
the landlord’s interest in the land gets extinguished and
simultaneously by a statutory sale without anything more by the
parties, the extinguished title of the landlord is kindled or created G
in the tenant. That very moment landlord-tenant relationship as
understood in common law or Transfer of Property Act comes
to an end. The link and chain is broken. The absent non-
cultivating landlord ceases to have that ownership element of the
land and the cultivating tenant, the tiller of the soil becomes the
owner thereof. This is unquestionable. The landlord from the date H
600 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A of statutory sale is only entitled to receive the purchase price as
determined by the Tribunal under Section 32-G. In other words,
the landlord ceases to be landlord and the tenant becomes the
owner of the land and comes in direct contact with the State.
Without any act of transfer inter vivos the title of the landlord is
extinguished and is created simultaneously in the tenant making
B the tenant the deemed purchaser. It is an admitted position that
on April 1, 1957 Tarachand was the landlord and Janardhan was
the tenant. Tarachand landlord was under no disability as
envisaged by Section 32-F. Therefore on April 1, 1957 Janardhan
became deemed purchaser and Mr Lalit could not controvert this
C position.
7. If Janardhan became the deemed purchaser on tillers’ day,
the relationship of landlord and tenant between Tarachand and
Janardhan came to be extinguished and no right could be claimed
either by Tarachand or anyone claiming through him such as
D Ashoklal or the present purchasers on the footing that they are
the owners of the land on or after April 1, 1957. This basic fact
is incontrovertible.
8. It may be mentioned that Section 32-F has no application to
the facts of this case. Section 32-F postponed the date of
compulsory purchase by the tenant where the landlord is a minor
E
or a widow or a person subject to mental or physical disability
on the tillers’ day. Section 32-F has an overriding effect over
Section 32 as it opens with a non-obstante clause. The combined
effect of Sections 32-F and 32 would show that where the
landlord is under no disability as envisaged by Section 32-F the
F tenant of such landlord by operation of law would become the
deemed purchaser but where the landlord is of a class or
category as set out in Section 32-F such as a minor, a widow or
a person subject to any mental or physical disability, the date of
compulsory sale would be postponed as therein provided. Now,
if Tarachand, the landlord was under no disability and he was
G alive on April 1, 1957 and he was the owner, his tenant Janardhan
became the deemed purchaser. This conclusion, in our opinion,
is unassailable.”
13. It can thus be seen that the Scheme of the 1948 Act, and in
particular, the 1956 Amendment, which introduced Tillers’ Day, is that
H an absentee landlord’s rights in the land must give way to a cultivating
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 601
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
tenant. Statutorily, on Tillers’ Day, the landlord is divested of title and A
the tenant is vested with title to agricultural land which he cultivates
by dint of his own effort. It is only in three cases that such purchase
becomes ineffective – if the tenant fails to appear within the time
prescribed after notice is given to him, or appears and declines purchase,
or if the tenant fails to pay the entire purchase price. The widow, the
B
minor and the person subject to a disability are placed on the same
pedestal, and throughout their widowhood, minority or period of disability
are deemed to cultivate the land personally through their tenants – the
Explanation - I to Section 2(6) makes this clear. As we have seen from
the case law extracted above, in the vast majority of cases, the landlord
is divested of his title on a fixed date i.e. 1st April, 1957. It is only in C
exceptional cases where the landlord is a widow, minor or a person
subjected to disability that this right of the tenant is postponed. What is
important to note is that it is to the knowledge of both landlord and tenant
that the tenant becomes the owner statutorily on a fixed date i.e. 1 st
April, 1957. Even otherwise, on postponed dates that are mentioned
D
under Section 32, the tenant shall be deemed to have purchased the
land on such postponed date under the first proviso to sub-section (1)
of Section 32 when an application for possession made by the landlord
under Section 29 is finally rejected – a date that is to the knowledge of
both landlord and tenant. Also, under the circumstances prescribed
under Section 32(1A), again the tenant shall be deemed to have E
purchased the land on a date on which a final order is passed by the
Tribunal in the circumstances mentioned in the said sub-section. Again,
under sub-section (1B), in the circumstances mentioned in the aforesaid
sub-section, land gets restored to the tenant upon which deemed
purchase takes place. Statutorily, therefore, in all cases covered by
F
Section 32, the landlord is divested of his title either on Tillers’ Day or
on a postponed date which is to the knowledge of the tenant, as the
aforesaid date is on and from a final order of a Tribunal or a Tahsildar,
as the case may be.
14. Section 32-G is a very important pointer to the fact that a
tenant must be put on notice in order that the purchase price of land G
be determined by the Tribunal. This notice under Section 32-G(1) is in
the form of a public notice in the prescribed form in each village. Apart
from this, the Tribunal shall also issue a notice individually to each tenant
calling upon him to appear before it on the date specified in the notice.
The same is the case of a tenant who is deemed to have purchased H
602 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A the land on the postponed date under Section 32-G(5). Again, when
we come to Section 32-O in respect of tenancies created after Tillers’
Day, a tenant cultivating personally shall be entitled, within one year
from the commencement of such tenancy, to purchase such land within
the ceiling area. What is important is that under sub-section (1A), this
right is to be exercised by giving an intimation in that behalf to the
B
landlord and the Tribunal in the prescribed manner within the period of
one year. This again is a date which is within the knowledge of the
tenant as the period of one year is calculated from the commencement
of his tenancy. It can thus be seen that in the case of postponed dates
under Section 32 and the right of a tenant in respect of tenancies created
C after Tillers’ Day, the tenant is to exercise his statutory right knowing
fully well that if he does not do so within the prescribed period or does
not pay purchase price, the purchase either becomes ineffective or the
right cannot be exercised. In all these cases, what is important to notice
is that the tenant knows of the time within which he must exercise his
rights.
D
15. We now come to the Section which needs to be interpreted.
Section 32-F was introduced by the Amendment Act of 1956 as part
of a scheme of agrarian reform. The reason for the non-obstante clause,
with which the Section begins, is that the cultivating tenant in all cases
where the landlord is a minor, a widow or a person subjected to a
E disability, does not statutorily become owner of the agricultural land
cultivated personally by him on Tillers’ Day. This is for the reason that
under Section 2(6) Explanation- I, these three categories of landlords
are deemed to cultivate personally through such tenant. The entitlement
of terminating a tenancy under any one of these three categories is
F contained in Section 31(3). In any of these three cases, the moment
the disability ceases i.e. that the land in question no longer belongs to
a minor, as he has become major, or to a widow, as she has died or
transferred her share with permission under Section 63, or to a person
whose mental or physical disability ceases, one year is granted for such
persons to apply for resumption of the land on the ground that such
G persons wish to personally cultivate the said land, pursuant to which
an application for possession of land under Section 29 may then be
made. In case this is done within the time prescribed, the tenant’s right
to purchase does not fructify. It is only when this is not done within
the period of one year, as aforestated, that the postponed right of the
H tenant springs into being.
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 603
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
16. Prior to the Amendment Act of 1969, on a plain literal reading A
of Section 32-F(1)(a), it is true that a tenant had to exercise this right
within a period of one year from the expiry of the one year spoken of
in Section 31(3) of the Act. Literally speaking, therefore, even if the
tenant does not know when the minor became major or when the widow
died or transferred her share, this right would cease on the expiry of B
one year.
17. Realising that this would cause immense hardship for want
of knowledge of a special fact which is only within the landlord’s ken,
the legislature stepped in and amended Section 32-F. The Statement
of Objects and Reasons for this Amendment Act is as follows: C
“STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS
It has come to the notice of the Government that a number of
tenants in the Bombay area and the Vidarbha region of the State,
failed to acquire ownership right in the lands held by them on
account of their being dispossessed from the land otherwise than D
in the manner laid down in the relevant tenancy law. It is,
therefore, expedient to amend the tenancy laws in force in these
regions for safeguarding the interest of these dispossessed
tenants.
It is also noticed that a large number of tenants in the Bombay E
area of the State holding land from landlords who were minors
have lost right to purchase land for their failure to give intimation
within the period laid down in sub-section (1-A) of Section 32,
It is, therefore, necessary to give these tenants a fresh
opportunity to purchase land. Section 32-F is, therefore, being F
suitably amended for that purpose.
As a result of the decision of the Supreme Court of India, in
Mussamia Imam Haider Bax Razvi v. Rabari Gobindbhai
Ratnabhai [Mussamia Imam Haider Bax Razvi v. Rabari
Gobindbhai Ratnabhai, AIR 1969 SC 439] from the judgment G
of the High Court of Gujarat regarding jurisdiction of civil court
in certain matters, it has also become necessary to suitably amend
certain sections of the tenancy laws in force in the three regions
of the State.
The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects.” H
604 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A 18. Paragraph 2 of the Statement of Objects and Reasons
indicates that an amnesty scheme is necessary, in that a large number
of tenants in the Bombay area who are minors have lost the right to
purchase as they have failed to give the necessary intimation within
the period laid down by statute. Under this amnesty scheme, if a tenant
held land from a landlord who was a minor and who had obtained
B
majority before the commencement of the 1969 Amendment and no
intimation had been given, two years extra was given from the date of
commencement of that Act in which such intimation may be given. This
statutory object, reflected in paragraph 2 of the Statement of Objects
and Reasons, is carried out by the proviso to sub-section (1A) inserted
C by the 1969 Amendment Act into Section 32-F.
19. Simultaneously, the same Amendment Act inserted into sub-
section (1)(a), the following:
“and for enabling the tenant to exercise the right of purchase,
the landlord shall send an intimation to the tenant of the fact
D that he has attained majority, before the expiry of the period
during which such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy
under Section 31:”
The addition of these words into Section 32-F(1)(a) would show
that the legislature, in keeping with the object sought to be achieved
E statutorily divesting the landlord of his title and handing over the land
to the cultivating tenant, cannot possibly be achieved unless a special
fact within the knowledge of the landlord alone is first intimated to the
tenant, so that he may then, with knowledge that the minor landlord
has now turned major, meaningfully exercise his right of purchase under
F the Act.
20. It seems to us that the vast majority of cases which came to
the notice of the legislature were cases of landlords who were minor
at the time of the 1956 Amendment Act and who turned major only
thereafter. The amnesty scheme contained in sub-section (1A), was,
G therefore, limited only to such cases. Unfortunately, the legislature, when
it inserted words into sub-section (1)(a) of Section 32-F, appears to have
forgotten that these words will govern the right of tenants which has
been postponed on account of a landlord’s disability. What appears to
have been missed is the fact that, apart from minors, there are two
other categories mentioned in Section 32-F(1)(a), all of whom would
H stand on the same footing insofar as the tenant is concerned. It would
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 605
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
be wholly anomalous for a tenant to be told that if his landlord happened A
to be a minor who has attained majority later, he must first be intimated
of this fact before he can meaningfully exercise his right of purchase;
whereas to a tenant who is similarly situate when the landlord is a
widow, in which case no such intimation need be made, the tenant would
suffer for no fault of his as the tenant would have no knowledge of
B
the date of death of the widow (which is a special fact known only to
her family), such tenant’s right of purchase being extinguished by time.
It seems that the draftsman of the 1969 Amendment was overwhelmed
with the amnesty scheme laid down in Section 32-F (1A), which then
spilled over to the amendment made in Section 32-F(1)(a), thereby
unintentionally leaving out the two other categories of landlords, where C
the same intimation needs to be made to the tenant, as the death of
the widow and/or the ceasing of disability are special facts known only
to the landlord and his family, just as in the case of a minor turning
major.
21. It has rightly been argued by learned counsel appearing on D
behalf of the Appellant that an absurd situation would be created by a
literal reading of Section 32-F(1)(a). The landlord being a widow is
protected until her death. After her death, one year is given to her
successors in interest to exercise the right of resumption. When this
does not take place one year is granted from the expiry of this first E
one year to the tenant to exercise his statutory right. This cannot be
done because the tenant does not know of the death of the widow.
As a result, this very land which was not required by the landlord’s
successors in interest for personal cultivation, goes back to the landlord
under Section 32-P in cases in which the landlord either has no land F
within the ceiling limit or some land which does not exhaust the ceiling
limit. This anomaly indeed turns the entire scheme of agrarian reform
on its head. We have thus to see whether the language of Section 32-
F can be added to or subtracted from, in order that the absurdity
aforementioned and the discrimination between persons who are
similarly situate be obviated. G
The Golden Rule of Interpretation
22. In Grey v. Pearson (1857) LR 6 HL Cas 61, what is
referred to as the Golden rule of literal interpretation was stated as
follows: H
606 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A “… I have been long and deeply impressed with the wisdom of
the rule, now, I believe, universally adopted, at least in the Courts
of Law in Westminster Hall, that in construing wills and indeed
statutes, and all written instruments, the grammatical and ordinary
sense of the words is to be adhered to, unless that would lead
to some absurdity, or some repugnance or inconsistency with
B
the rest of the instrument, in which case the grammatical and
ordinary sense of the words may be modified, so as to avoid
that absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther. This is laid
down by Mr Justice Burton, in a very excellent opinion, which is
to be found in Warburton v. Loveland [Warburton v. Loveland,
C (1831) 2 Dow & Cl 480 : 6 ER 806] (see ante, p. 76. n.)”
(Emphasis supplied)
23. In an early Privy Council judgment in Salmon v. Duncombe
(1886) 11 AC 627, Ordinance No. 1 of 1856 as it applied to Natal was
up for construction. In order to make sense of the provision, the Privy
D Council found it necessary to cross out certain words of the Ordinance.
This they did by stating:
“It is, however, a very serious matter to hold that when the main
object of a statute is clear, it shall be reduced to a nullity by the
draftsman’s unskilfulness or ignorance of law. It may be
E necessary for a Court of Justice to come to such a conclusion,
but their Lordships hold that nothing can justify it except necessity
or the absolute intractability of the language used. And they have
set themselves to consider, first, whether any substantial doubt
can be suggested as to the main object of the legislature; and,
F secondly, whether the last nine words of sect. 1 are so cogent
and so limit the rest of the statute as to nullify its effect either
entirely or in a very important particular.
As to the broad intention of those who framed the Ordinance,
their Lordships cannot find that anybody has ever intimated a
G doubt, nor do they find it possible to entertain one, that it was
intended to give to all the Queen’s subjects, resident or settled
in Natal, the option of disposing by will according to English law,
of property both real and personal which otherwise would devolve
according to Natal law. The title may be looked at for aid in
finding out the object. The preamble is of great importance in
H finding out the object. They have been quoted above, and nobody
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 607
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
who reads to the end of the preamble and there stops, can doubt A
that the object is to provide a substantial measure substituting
English law for Natal law in the cases mentioned.
That object is carried into effect by sect. 1, on which the
subsequent sections turn. Now suppose that sect. 1 ended with
the words “in this district” or with the words “intents and B
purposes.” Though it would then be very inartificially drawn, it
would not be difficult to construe it so as to give effect to the
before declared object. The conditional words “could or might
exercise” would require the implication of an unexpressed
condition; otherwise the sentence would result in a nullity. But C
the implication would be by no means a difficult one. By implying
after the words “customs of England” the addition “over property
subject to those laws and customs,” the enactment would become
sensible and harmonious.
The difficulty is, and their Lordships quite agree that it is a great D
difficulty, that a condition which is apparently and at first sight
the correlative condition of the conditional words “could or might
exercise” is expressed by the last nine words of the section. And
the question is whether that expression excludes all other
implications. If such a construction left a substantial operative
effect to the enactment, it might be necessary to answer that E
question in the affirmative; but, as it destroys the expressed
objects altogether unless the word “resident” be construed to
mean “domiciled,” and in that case destroys the expressed
objects so far as regards real property, their Lordships answer it
in the negative. It is true that they cannot find a sensible meaning F
for the nine words in question. Very likely the draftsman, whose
want of skill is shown by other expressions in the Ordinance,
attributed to residence a legal effect which it does not possess.
But he does not make the legislature say that the powers
conferred are not to be any greater powers than would be
conferred by a residence in England. He makes it in the rest of G
the section use terms which, with the easy implication that is
necessary to give them meaning and to harmonize with the
declared objects, confer the power of escaping from Natal law
and coming under English law; and he then adds words which
may add nothing to what has gone before, but which ought not H
608 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A without necessity to be construed so as to destroy all that has
gone before. A man exercising the powers conferred does not
in any way violate or contravene the nine words in question. He
does exercise these powers as if he resided in England, because
it is perfectly immaterial for their exercise whether he is supposed
B to reside in England or not, and because wherever he is supposed
to reside he exercises them in the same way. It is very
unsatisfactory to be compelled to construe a statute in this way,
but it is much more unsatisfactory to deprive it altogether of
meaning. Their Lordships chose the lesser of two difficulties.”
C 24. In an early judgment of our Court, Tirath Singh v. Bachittar
Singh & Ors (1955) 2 SCR 457, this Court had to construe the proviso
to Section 99(1)(a)(ii) of the Representation of People Act, 1951. The
Court held:
“…But it is a rule of interpretation well-established that, “Where
D the language of a statute, in its ordinary meaning and grammatical
construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of the apparent
purpose of the enactment, or to some inconvenience or absurdity,
hardship or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may
be put upon it which modifies the meaning of the words, and even
E the structure of the sentence”. (Maxwell’s Interpretation of
Statutes, 10th Edn., p. 229). Reading the proviso along with
clause (b) thereto, and construing it in its setting in the section,
we are of opinion that notwithstanding the wideness of the
language used, the proviso contemplates notice only to persons
who are not parties to the petition.”
F
The Court, therefore, restricted the word “person” appearing in
the said proviso to mean only persons who are not parties to the election
petition. This was done, given the fact that the object of the proviso
was to give notice to persons who had hitherto not been given notice
G of the election petition. Obviously, the parties to the election petition
were persons who knew of the existence of such petition.
25. In Ramaswamy Nadar v. State of Madras (1958) SCR 739,
this Court found it necessary to supply words which were not found in
Section 423(1)(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. This the Court did
H as follows:
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 609
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
“…But this argument is wholly ineffective because in either view A
of the matter the court has to supply some words in answer to
the question “find him guilty of what?” According to the appellant,
those additional words should be “of such offence as has been
charged and of which he had been acquitted”, and according to
the other view, “of the offence disclosed”. If, in construing the
B
section, the court has to supply some words in order to make
the meaning of the statute clear, it will naturally prefer the latter
construction which is more in consonance with reason and
justice.”
26. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. Azad Bharat Finance Co.
& Anr. (1966) Supp. SCR 473, Section 11 of the Opium (Madhya C
Bharat Amendment) Act, 1955 was construed as being permissive and
not obligatory as follows:
“...It is well recognised that if a statute leads to absurdity, hardship
or injustice, presumably not intended, a construction may be put
upon it which modifies the meaning of the words, and even the D
structure of the sentence, (vide Tirath Singh v. Bachittar Singh
[(1955) 2 SCR 457 at 464] ).
Secondly, it is a penal statute and it should, if possible, be
construed in such a way that a person who has not committed
or abetted any offence should not be visited with a penalty. E
Thirdly, if the meaning suggested by Mr Shroff is given, Section
11(d) of the Madhya Bharat Act may have to be struck down
as imposing unreasonable restrictions under Article 19 of the
Constitution. Bearing all these considerations in mind, we consider
that Section 11 of the Madhya Bharat Act is not obligatory and F
it is for the court to consider in each case whether the vehicle
in which the contraband opium is found or is being transported
should be confiscated or not, having regard to all the
circumstances of the case.”
27. In Budhan Singh v. Nabi Bux (1970) 2 SCR 10, this Court G
held that the expression “held” occurring in Section 9 of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Reforms Act, 1950 must mean “lawfully held”
thereby adding the word “lawfully”. The Court held: -
“…Before considering the meaning of the word “held” in Section
9, it is necessary to mention that it is proper to assume that the H
610 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A lawmakers who are the representatives of the people enact laws
which the society considers as honest, fair and equitable.
The object of every legislation is to advance public welfare. In
other words as observed by Crawford in his book on Statutory
Constructions the entire legislative process is influenced by
B considerations of justice and reason. Justice and reason constitute
the great general legislative intent in every piece of legislation.
Consequently where the suggested construction operates harshly,
ridiculously or in any other manner contrary to prevailing
conceptions of justice and reason, in most instances, it would
seem that the apparent or suggested meaning of the statute, was
C
not the one intended by the law-makers. In the absence of some
other indication that the harsh or ridiculous effect was actually
intended by the legislature, there is little reason to believe that it
represents the legislative intent.”
28. In Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Calcutta v.
D
National Taj Traders (1980) 1 SCC 370, this Court construed Section
33-B of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 in order to avoid a manifestly
absurd result as follows:
“…According to the construction contended for by the assessee
and which found favour with the High Court the answer was in
E
the affirmative because sub-section (2)(b), on its literal
construction, was absolute. In our view such literal construction
would lead to a manifestly absurd result, because in a given case,
like the present one, where the Appellate Authority (Tribunal) has
found (a) the Income Tax Officer’s order to be clearly erroneous
F as being prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue, and (b) the
Commissioner’s order unsustainable as being in violation of
principles of natural justice, how should the Appellate Authority
exercise its appellate powers? Obviously it could not withhold
its hands and refuse to interfere with Commissioner’s order
altogether, for, that would amount to perpetuating the
G
Commissioner’s erroneous order, nor could it merely cancel or
set aside the Commissioner’s wrong order without doing anything
about the Income Tax Officer’s order, for, that would result in
perpetuating the Income Tax Officer’s order which had been
found to be manifestly erroneous as being prejudicial to the
H revenue. But such result would flow from the view taken by the
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 611
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
High Court which has held that the Tribunal acted properly in A
vacating the Commissioner’s order but did not act properly in
directing him to dispose of the proceedings afresh after giving
opportunity to the assessee. Such manifestly absurd result could
never have been intended by the Legislature.
xxx xxx xxx B
A literal construction placed on sub-section (2)(b) would lead to
such manifestly absurd and anomalous results, which, we do not
think, were intended by the Legislature. These considerations
compel us to construe the words of sub-section (2)(b) as being
applicable to suo motu orders of the Commissioner in revision C
and not to orders made by him pursuant to a direction or order
passed by the Appellate Tribunal under sub-section (4) or by any
other higher authority. Such construction will be in consonance
with the principle that all parts of the section should be construed
together and every clause thereof should be construed with
reference to the context and other clauses thereof so that the D
construction put on that particular provision makes a consistent
enactment of the whole statute.”
29. In K.P. Verghese v. ITO (1981) 4 SCC 173, this Court dealt
with the correct interpretation of Section 52 of the Income Tax Act,
1961. Read literally, the moment there is transfer of a capital asset by E
an amount less than the fair market value, the fair market value is to
be taken instead of the stated consideration. This Court read into Section
52 the fact that it would have no application in case of a bona fide
transaction where the full value of the consideration for the transfer is
correctly declared by the assessee. The Court held: F
“5. …The task of interpretation of a statutory enactment is not
a mechanical task. It is more than a mere reading of
mathematical formulae because few words possess the precision
of mathematical symbols. It is an attempt to discover the intent
of the legislature from the language used by it and it must always G
be remembered that language is at best an imperfect instrument
for the expression of human thought and as pointed out by Lord
Denning, it would be idle to expect every statutory provision to
be “drafted with divine prescience and perfect clarity”. We can
do no better than repeat the famous words of Judge Learned
Hand when he laid: H
612 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A “... it is true that the words used, even in their literal sense,
are the primary and ordinarily the most reliable, source of
interpreting the meaning of any writing: be it a statute, a
contract or anything else. But it is one of the surest indexes
of a mature and developed jurisprudence not to make a
fortress out of the dictionary; but to remember that statutes
B
always have some purpose or object to accomplish, whose
sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to
their meaning.”
We must not adopt a strictly literal interpretation of Section 52
sub-section (2) but we must construe its language having regard
C to the object and purpose which the legislature had in view in
enacting that provision and in the context of the setting in which
it occurs. We cannot ignore the context and the collocation of
the provisions in which Section 52 sub-section (2) appears,
because, as pointed out by Judge Learned Hand in most felicitous
D language:
“... the meaning of a sentence may be more than that of the
separate words, as a melody is more than the notes, and no
degree of particularity can ever obviate recourse to the setting
in which all appear, and which all collectively create.”
E Keeping these observations in mind we may now approach the
construction of Section 52 sub-section (2).
6. The primary objection against the literal construction of Section
52 sub-section (2) is that it leads to manifestly unreasonable and
absurd consequences. It is true that the consequences of a
F suggested construction cannot alter the meaning of a statutory
provision but they can certainly help to fix its meaning. It is a
well-recognised rule of construction that a statutory provision must
be so construed, if possible, that absurdity and mischief may be
avoided. There are many situations where the construction
G suggested on behalf of the Revenue would lead to a wholly
unreasonable result which could never have been intended by
the legislature. Take, for example, a case where A agrees to sell
his property to B for a certain price and before the sale is
completed pursuant to the agreement — and it is quite well-
known that sometimes the completion of the sale may take place
H
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 613
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
even a couple of years after the date of the agreement — the A
market price shoots up with the result that the market price
prevailing on the date of the sale exceeds the agreed price at
which the property is sold by more than 15 per cent of such
agreed price. This is not at all an uncommon case in an economy
of rising prices and in fact we would find in a large number of B
cases where the sale is completed more than a year or two after
the date of the agreement that the market price prevailing on
the date of the sale is very much more than the price at which
the property is sold under the agreement. Can it be contended
with any degree of fairness and justice that in such cases, where
there is clearly no under-statement of consideration in respect C
of the transfer and the transaction is perfectly honest and bona
fide and, in fact, in fulfilment of a contractual obligation, the
assessee who has sold the property should be liable to pay tax
on capital gains which have not accrued or arisen to him. It
would indeed be most harsh and inequitable to tax the assessee D
on income which has neither arisen to him nor is received by
him, merely because he has carried out the contractual obligation
undertaken by him. It is difficult to conceive of any rational reason
why the legislature should have thought it fit to impose liability
to tax on an assessee who is bound by law to carry out his
E
contractual obligation to sell the property at the agreed price and
honestly carries out such contractual obligation. It would indeed
be strange if obedience to the law should attract the levy of tax
on income which has neither arisen to the assessee nor has been
received by him. If we may take another illustration, let us
consider a case where A sells his property to B with a stipulation F
that after some time which may be a couple of years or more,
he shall re-sell the property to A for the same price. Could it be
contended in such a case that when B transfers the property to
A for the same price at which he originally purchased it, he should
be liable to pay tax on the basis as if he has received the market G
value of the property as on the date of re-sale, if, in the
meanwhile, the market price has shot up and exceeds the agreed
price by more than 15 per cent? Many other similar situations
can be contemplated where it would be absurd and unreasonable
to apply Section 52 sub-section (2) according to its strict literal
H
614 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A construction. We must therefore eschew literalness in the
interpretation of Section 52 sub-section (2) and try to arrive at
an interpretation which avoids this absurdity and mischief and
makes the provision rational and sensible, unless of course, our
hands are tied and we cannot find any escape from the tyranny
B of the literal interpretation. It is now a well-settled rule of
construction that where the plain literal interpretation of a
statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result
which could never have been intended by the legislature, the
court may modify the language used by the legislature or even
“do some violence” to it, so as to achieve the obvious intention
C of the legislature and produce a rational construction (vide Luke
v. Inland Revenue Commissioner [(1963) AC 557] ). The Court
may also in such a case read into the statutory provision a
condition which, though not expressed, is implicit as constituting
the basic assumption underlying the statutory provision. We think
D that, having regard to this well-recognised rule of interpretation,
a fair and reasonable construction of Section 52 sub-section (2)
would be to read into it a condition that it would apply only where
the consideration for the transfer is understated or in other words,
the assessee has actually received a larger consideration for the
transfer than what is declared in the instrument of transfer and
E
it would have no application in case of a bona fide transaction
where the full value of the consideration for the transfer is
correctly declared by the assessee. There are several important
considerations which incline us to accept this construction of
Section 52 sub-section (2).”
F
30. In CIT v. J.H. Gotla (1985) 4 SCC 343, the true
construction of Section 24(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 was before
the Court. Following Verghese’s case (supra), the Court held:
“44. Our attention was also drawn to the decision in the case
G of Manickam and Co. v. State of T.N. [(1977) 1 SCC 199 :
1977 SCC (Tax) 165 : (1977) 39 STC 12, 18] as well as Craies
on Statute Law (6th Edn), p. 147.
45. In the case of K.P. Varghese v. IT0 [(1981) 4 SCC 173 :
1981 SCC (Tax) 293 : (1981) 131 ITR 597] this Court emphasised
H
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 615
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
that a statutory provision must be so construed, if possible, that A
absurdity and mischief may be avoided.
46. Where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision
produces a manifestly unjust result which could never have been
intended by the Legislature, the Court might modify the language
used by the Legislature so as to achieve the intention of the B
Legislature and produce a rational construction. The task of
interpretation of a statutory provision is an attempt to discover
the intention of the Legislature from the language used. It is
necessary to remember that language is at best an imperfect
instrument for the expression of human intention. It is well to
C
remember the warning administered by Judge Learned Hand that
one should not make a fortress out of dictionary but remember
that statutes always have some purpose or object to accomplish
and sympathetic and imaginative discovery is the surest guide to
their meaning.
D
47. We have noted the object of Section 16(3) of the Act which
has to be read in conjunction with Section 24(2) in this case for
the present purpose. If the purpose of a particular provision is
easily discernible from the whole scheme of the Act which in
this case is, to counteract the effect of the transfer of assets so
far as computation of income of the assessee is concerned then E
bearing that purpose in mind, we should find out the intention
from the language used by the Legislature and if strict literal
construction leads to an absurd result i.e. result not intended to
be subserved by the object of the legislation found in the manner
indicated before, and if another construction is possible apart from
F
strict literal construction then that construction should be
preferred to the strict literal construction.
xxx xxx xxx
48. In view of the aforesaid and in view of the attitude of the
law-makers in dealing with this problem as evidenced by the G
amendment and in the circular originally issued prior thereto and
bearing in mind that under the scheme of the Act where the wife
or minor child carries on a running business, the right to carry
forward the loss in the running business would be available to
the wife or minor child if they themselves were assessed but the
H
616 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A right would be completely lost if the individual in whose total
income the loss is to be included is not permitted to carry forward
the loss under Section 24(2); since that would be the result of
the strict literal construction it is apparent that that could not have
been the intent of the Parliament. Therefore, where Section 16(3)
of the Act operates, the profits or loss from a business of the
B
wife or minor child included in the total income of the assessee
should be treated as the profit or loss from a “business carried
on by him” for the purpose of carrying forward and set-off of
such loss under Section 24(2) of the Act.”
In another tax case, this Court, in State of Tamil Nadu v.
C Kodaikanal Motor Union (P) Ltd. (1986) 3 SCC 91, while
construing Section 10-A of the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956, held:
“17. The courts must always seek to find out the intention of
the legislature. Though the courts must find out the intention of
the statute from the language used, but language more often than
D not is an imperfect instrument of expression of human thought.
As Lord Denning said it would be idle to expect every statutory
provision to be drafted with divine prescience and perfect clarity.
As Judge Learned Hand said, we must not make a fortress out
of dictionary but remember that statutes must have some purpose
E or object, whose imaginative discovery is judicial craftsmanship.
We need not always cling to literalness and should seek to
endeavour to avoid an unjust or absurd result. We should not make
a mockery of legislation. To make sense out of an unhappily
worded provision, where the purpose is apparent to the judicial
eve “some” violence to language is permissible. (See K.P.
F Varghese v. ITO [(1981) 4 SCC 173, 180-82 : 1981 SCC (Tax)
293, 300-302 : (1981) 131 ITR 597, 604-606] and Luke v. Inland
Revenue Commissioner [(1964) 54 ITR 692 (HL)] .)
xxx xxx xxx
G 19. … The presumption canvassed to be raised that the true
effect of the words “if the offence had not been committed” was
to presume a situation in which the undertaking given by the
assessee had been carried out even though in fact the same had
not been carried out. That would be an absurd result. In our
opinion the use of the expression “if” simpliciter, was meant to
H indicate a condition, the condition being that at the time of
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 617
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
assessing the penalty, that situation should be visualised wherein A
there was no scope of committing any offence. Such a situation
could arise only if the tax liability fell under sub-section (2) of
Section 8 of the Act. The scheme of Section 8 indicated that
concessional rates contemplated by sub-section (1) thereof would
be available only with reference to those goods which are
B
covered by the declarations in Form ‘C’. The moment it is found
that in respect of particular quantity of goods the undertaking
given by the assessee in Form ‘C’ declaration has not been carried
out, the goods were presumed to be such in respect of which no
undertaking was existing. Therefore such goods would be liable
to normal tax contemplated under sub-section (2) of Section 8. C
Therefore, the penalty should be worked out only on the basis
of the normal rates prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section
8. That would make sense. That is a reasonably possible
construction. That would avoid absurd result.”
31. In Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohanlal (1988) 2 D
SCC 513, Section 10(3)(a)(iii) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and
Rent Control) Act, 1960 was read harmoniously with the other provisions
of the Act, as a result of which the words “if the landlord required it
for his own use or for the use of any member of his family” were read
into sub-clause (iii). This was done for the reason:
E
“10. …If the two sub-clauses are not so read, it would lead to
an absurd result. The non-residential building referred to in sub-
clause (ii) is a building which is used for the purpose of keeping
a vehicle or adapted for such use and all other non-residential
buildings fall under sub-clause (iii). The State Legislature cannot F
be attributed with the intention that it required a more stringent
proof by insisting upon proof of bona fides of his requirement or
need also when a landlord is seeking eviction of a tenant from a
garage than in the case of a non-residential building which is
occupied by large commercial house for carrying on business.
The learned counsel for the respondent was not able to explain G
as to why the State Legislature gave greater protection to tenants
occupying premises used for keeping vehicles or adapted for such
use than to tenants occupying other types of non-residential
buildings. It is no doubt true that the court while construing a
provision should not easily read into it words which have not H
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A been expressly enacted but having regard to the context in which
a provision appears and the object of the statute in which the
said provision is enacted the court should construe it in a
harmonious way to make it meaningful.”
32. This judgment was followed in Surjit Singh Kalra v. Union
B of India (1991) 2 SCC 87 as follows:
“19. True it is not permissible to read words in a statute which
are not there, but “where the alternative lies between either
supplying by implication words which appear to have been
accidentally omitted, or adopting a construction which deprives
C certain existing words of all meaning, it is permissible to supply
the words” (Craies Statute Law, 7th edn., p. 109). Similar are
the observations in Hameedia Hardware Stores v. B. Mohan
Lal Sowcar [(1988) 2 SCC 513, 524-25] where it was observed
that the court construing a provision should not easily read into
D it words which have not been expressly enacted but having regard
to the context in which a provision appears and the object of the
statute in which the said provision is enacted the court should
construe it in a harmonious way to make it meaningful. An
attempt must always be made so to reconcile the relevant
provisions as to advance the remedy intended by the statute. (See:
E Sirajul Haq Khan v. Sunni Central Board of Waqf [1959 SCR
1287, 1299 : AIR 1959 SC 198] .)
20. The tenant of course is entitled to raise all relevant
contentions as against the claim of the classified landlords. The
fact that there is no reference to the word bona fide requirement
F in Sections 14-B to 14-D does not absolve the landlord from
proving that his requirement is bona fide or the tenant from
showing that it is not bona fide. In fact every claim for eviction
against a tenant must be a bona fide one. There is also enough
indication in support of this construction from the title of Section
G 25-B which states “special procedure for the disposal of
applications for eviction on the ground of bona fide
requirement”.”
33. In C.W.S. (India) Limited v. Commissioner of Income
Tax (1994) Supp. 2 SCC 296, Section 40(c)(iii) of the Income Tax Act,
H 1961 came up for discussion. The Court held:
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 619
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
“10. Now, it may be noticed that Section 40(a)(v) is only an A
expanded version of Section 40(c)(iii). The idea was to bring the
allowances in respect of the assets owned by the assessee, which
assets are used by its employee for his own purposes or benefit,
within the net of ceiling. Section 40(c)(iii) did not cover such
allowances and this was sought to be remedied. The idea was
B
certainly not to bring about a different treatment of two situations
in Section 40(a)(v) referred to as clauses (i) and (ii) in this
judgment. The consequence of accepting the assessee’s
interpretation would be that while the ceiling on expenditure would
apply to a case falling under clause (i), no such ceiling would
apply to a case falling under clause (ii) unless the employee C
governed by clause (ii) is also provided a benefit, amenity or
perquisite falling under clause (i). The consequence would not
only be discriminatory but also very incongruous, almost absurd.
In principle, there is no distinction between the two cases or two
situations, as they may be called. We are satisfied that the mere D
use of the word “such” in clause (ii) should not have the effect
of driving the court to place an interpretation upon the said clause
which is not only discriminatory but is highly incongruous…In this
connection, we may refer to the well-recognised rule of
interpretation of statutes that where a literal interpretation leads
to absurd or unintended result, the language of the statute can E
be modified to accord with the intention of Parliament and to
avoid absurdity. The following passage from Maxwell’s
Interpretation of Statutes (12th Edn.) may usefully be quoted:
“1. Modification of the language to meet the intention.—
Where the language of the statute, in its ordinary meaning and F
grammatical construction, leads to a manifest contradiction of
the apparent purpose of the enactment, or to some
inconvenience or absurdity which can hardly have been
intended, a construction may be put upon it which modifies
the meaning of the words and even the structure of the
G
sentence. This may be done by departing from the rules of
grammar, by giving an unusual meaning to particular words,
or by rejecting them altogether, on the ground that the
legislature could not possibly have intended what its words
signify, and that the modifications made are mere corrections
of careless language and really give the true meaning. Where H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A the main object and the intention of a statute are clear, it must
not be reduced to a nullity by the draftman’s unskilfulness or
ignorance of the law, except in a case of necessity, or the
absolute intractability of the language used. Lord Reid has said
that he prefers to see a mistake on the part of the draftsman
in doing his revision rather than a deliberate attempt to
B
introduce an irrational rule: ‘The canons of construction are
not so rigid as to prevent a realistic solution.’”
We are, therefore, of the opinion that the Full Bench of the Kerala
High Court was right in taking the view it did on this aspect and
we agree with it.”
C
34. In Molar Mal v. Kay Iron Works (P) Ltd. (2000) 4 SCC
285, this Court construed a provision of the Haryana Urban (Control
of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 by interpreting the proviso to Section
13(3) of the said Act by adding certain words as follows:
D “12. …We agree with this contention of the landlord that normally
the courts will have to follow the rule of literal construction which
rule enjoins the court to take the words as used by the legislature
and to give it the meaning which naturally implies. But, there is
an exception to this rule. That exception comes into play when
application of literal construction of the words in the statute leads
E to absurdity, inconsistency or when it is shown that the legal
context in which the words are used or by reading the statute
as a whole, it requires a different meaning. In our opinion, if the
expression “entitled to apply again” is given its literal meaning, it
would defeat the very object for which the legislature has
incorporated that proviso in the Act inasmuch as the object of
F that proviso can be defeated by a landlord who has more than
one tenanted premises by filing multiple applications
simultaneously for eviction and thereafter obtain possession of
all those premises without the bar of the proviso being applicable
to him. We are of the opinion that this could not have been the
G purpose for which the proviso is included in the Act. If such an
interpretation is given then the various provisos found in sub-
section (3) of Section 13 would become otiose and the very object
of the enactment would be defeated. Any such interpretation, in
our opinion, would lead to absurdity. Therefore, we have no
hesitation in interpreting the proviso to mean that the restriction
H contemplated under that proviso extends even up to the stage
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 621
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
when the court or the tribunal is considering the case of the A
landlord for actual eviction and is not confined to the stage of
filing of eviction petition only.”
35. In Union of India v. Hansoli Devi (2002) 7 SCC 273, this
Court construed Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by
eschewing a literal interpretation thereof, and reading into the Section B
the words “and that reference is entertained and answered”. The Court
stated:
“9. …It is no doubt true that the object of Section 28-A of the
Act was to confer a right of making a reference, (sic on one)
who might have not made a reference earlier under Section 18 C
and, therefore, ordinarily when a person makes a reference under
Section 18 but that was dismissed on the ground of delay, he
would not get the right of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition
Act when some other person makes a reference and the
reference is answered. But Parliament having enacted Section
D
28-A, as a beneficial provision, it would cause great injustice if
a literal interpretation is given to the expression “had not made
an application to the Collector under Section 18” in Section 28-
A of the Act. The aforesaid expression would mean that if the
landowner has made an application for reference under Section
18 and that reference is entertained and answered. In other E
words, it may not be permissible for a landowner to make a
reference and get it answered and then subsequently make
another application when some other person gets the reference
answered and obtains a higher amount. In fact in Pradeep
Kumari case [(1995) 2 SCC 736] the three learned Judges, while F
enumerating the conditions to be satisfied, whereafter an
application under Section 28-A can be moved, had categorically
stated (SCC p. 743, para 10) “the person moving the application
did not make an application to the Collector under Section 18”.
The expression “did not make an application”, as observed by
this Court, would mean, did not make an effective application G
which had been entertained by making the reference and the
reference was answered. When an application under Section 18
is not entertained on the ground of limitation, the same not
fructifying into any reference, then that would not tantamount to
an effective application and consequently the rights of such H
622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A applicant emanating from some other reference being answered
to move an application under Section 28-A cannot be denied. We,
accordingly answer Question 1(a) by holding that the dismissal
of an application seeking reference under Section 18 on the
ground of delay would tantamount to not filing an application
B within the meaning of Section 28-A of the Land Acquisition Act,
1894.”
36. Given the fact that the object of the 1956 Amendment, which
is an agrarian reform legislation, and is to give the tiller of the soil
statutory title to land which such tiller cultivates; and, given the fact
that the literal interpretation of Section 32-F(1)(a) would be contrary
C
to justice and reason and would lead to great hardship qua persons who
are similarly circumstanced; as also to the absurdity of land going back
to an absentee landlord when he has lost the right of personal cultivation,
in the teeth of the object of the 1956 Amendment as mentioned
hereinabove, we delete the words “.. of the fact that he has attained
D majority..”. Without these words, therefore, the landlord belonging to
all three categories has to send an intimation to the tenant, before the
expiry of the period during which such landlord is entitled to terminate
the tenancy under Section 31.
Section 32-F to be read in conformity with Article 14 of the
E Constitution of India
37. In R.L. Arora v. Union of India (1964) 6 SCR 784, this
Court laid down that:
“It is well settled that if certain provisions of law construed in
one way will be consistent with the constitution, and if another
F interpretation would render them unconstitutional, the Court
would lean in favour of the former construction: (see Kedar Nath
Singh v. State of Bihar) [(1962) Supp 2 SCR 769].”
38. In Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia v. Shri Justice S.R.
Tendolkar (1959) SCR 279, this Court summarised the case law under
G Article 14 in the form of six propositions. We are concerned here with
proposition (d), which reads as follows:
“… The principle enunciated above has been consistently
adopted and applied in subsequent cases. The decisions of this
Court further establish—
H xxx xxx xxx
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 623
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
(d) that the legislature is free to recognise degrees of harm and A
may confine its restrictions to those cases where the need is
deemed to be the clearest;”
Based on this proposition, Shri Bhasme has argued that the
legislature in the present case has recognised a certain degree of harm,
namely, to tenants of minor landlords and may, therefore, confine itself B
to such cases where the need is deemed to be clearest.
39. Proposition (d) has been later clarified in the seminal judgment
of this Court, In Re Special Courts Bill, 1978, (1979)1 SCC 380.
A Constitution Bench of this Court in paragraph 72 of the aforesaid
judgment, after referring to Ram Krishna Dalmia’s case (supra) and C
other judgments, stated 13 propositions insofar as Article 14 is
concerned. We are directly concerned with propositions (1), (3), (6)
and (8) which are set out as follows:
“72. As long back as in 1960, it was said by this Court in
Kangsari Haldar that the propositions applicable to cases arising D
under Article 14 “have been repeated so many times during the
past few years that they now sound almost platitudinous”. What
was considered to be platitudinous some 18 years ago has, in
the natural course of events, become even more platitudinous
today, especially in view of the avalanche of cases which have
flooded this Court. Many a learned Judge of this Court has said E
that it is not in the formulation of principles under Article 14 but
in their application to concrete cases that difficulties generally
arise. But, considering that we are sitting in a larger Bench than
some which decided similar cases under Article 14, and in view
of the peculiar importance of the questions arising in this F
reference, though the questions themselves are not without a
precedent, we propose, though undoubtedly at the cost of some
repetition, to state the propositions which emerge from the
judgments of this Court insofar as they are relevant to the
decision of the points which arise for our consideration. Those
propositions may be stated thus: G
“(1) The first part of Article 14, which was adopted from the
Irish Constitution, is a declaration of equality of the civil rights
of all persons within the territories of India. It enshrines a basic
principle of republicanism. The second part, which is a corollary
of the first and is based on the last clause of the first section of H
624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A the Fourteenth Amendment of the American Constitution, enjoins
that equal protection shall be secured to all such persons in the
enjoyment of their rights and liberties without discrimination of
favouritism. It is a pledge of the protection of equal laws, that
is, laws that operate alike on all persons under like circumstances.
B xxx xxx xxx
(3) The constitutional command to the State to afford equal
protection of its laws sets a goal not attainable by the invention
and application of a precise formula. Therefore, classification need
not be constituted by an exact or scientific exclusion or inclusion
C of persons or things. The courts should not insist on delusive
exactness or apply doctrinaire tests for determining the validity
of classification in any given case. Classification is justified if it
is not palpably arbitrary.
xxx xxx xxx
D
(6) The law can make and set apart the classes according to
the needs and exigencies of the society and as suggested by
experience. It can recognise even degree of evil, but the
classification should never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive.
xxx xxx xxx
E
(8) The differentia which is the basis of the classification and
the object of the Act are distinct things and what is necessary is
that there must be a nexus between them. In short, while Article
14 forbids class discrimination by conferring privileges or imposing
liabilities upon persons arbitrarily selected out of a large number
F
of other persons similarly situated in relation to the privileges
sought to be conferred or the liabilities proposed to be imposed,
it does not forbid classification for the purpose of legislation,
provided such classification is not arbitrary in the sense
abovementioned.”
G To proposition (d) in Ram Krishna Dalmia’s case (supra) an
exception has been engrafted in proposition (6) contained hereinabove.
The law may recognise degrees of harm, but in so doing the
classification should never be arbitrary, artificial or evasive. This is
repeated by way of a proviso to proposition (8) as well. We have
H referred to the Statement of the Objects and Reasons for the 1969
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 625
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
Amendment. Paragraph 2 thereof stated that a large number of cases A
involving minor landlords had come to the notice of the legislature, for
which reason the amnesty scheme mentioned in sub-section (1A) of
Section 32-F was enacted. However, what was forgotten by the
draftsman when the addition to Section 32-F(1)(a) was made was the
fact that Section 32F(1)(a) referred to three categories of landlords and
B
not only one. The words added by the 1969 amendment thus gave relief
to tenants only qua minor landlords and not the other two categories.
Obviously, the classification made in favour of tenants of minor landlords
as opposed to tenants of landlords of the other two categories is a
classification which is arbitrary in nature. This being the case, such
classification would ordinarily have to be struck down as being violative C
of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
40. However, instead of striking down such classification as a
whole, what can be done is to strike down the words “..of the fact
that he has attained majority..”, as a result of which, what is added by
the 1969 Amendment to Section 32-F(1)(a) now ceases to be D
discriminatory, as it is applicable to tenants of all three categories of
landlords.
41. In Shayara Bano v. Union of India (2017) 9 SCC 1, this
Court referred to the positive aspect of the fundamental right contained
in Article 14 thus: E
“62. Article 14 of the Constitution of India is a facet of equality
of status and opportunity spoken of in the Preamble to the
Constitution. The Article naturally divides itself into two parts—
(1) equality before the law, and (2) the equal protection of the
law. Judgments of this Court have referred to the fact that the F
equality before law concept has been derived from the law in
the UK, and the equal protection of the laws has been borrowed
from the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
of America. In a revealing judgment, Subba Rao, J., dissenting,
in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya [State of U.P. v.
Deoman Upadhyaya, (1961) 1 SCR 14 : AIR 1960 SC 1125 : G
1960 Cri LJ 1504] , AIR p. 1134 para 26 : SCR at p. 34 further
went on to state that whereas equality before law is a negative
concept, the equal protection of the law has positive content. The
early judgments of this Court referred to the “discrimination”
aspect of Article 14, and evolved a rule by which subjects could H
626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A be classified. If the classification was “intelligible” having regard
to the object sought to be achieved, it would pass muster under
Article 14’s anti-discrimination aspect. Again, Subba Rao, J.,
dissenting, in Lachhman Dass v. State of Punjab [Lachhman
Dass v. State of Punjab, (1963) 2 SCR 353 : AIR 1963 SC
222], SCR at p. 395, warned that: (AIR p. 240, para 50)
B
“50. … Overemphasis on the doctrine of classification or an
anxious and sustained attempt to discover some basis for
classification may gradually and imperceptibly deprive the
Article of its glorious content.”
C He referred to the doctrine of classification as a “subsidiary rule”
evolved by courts to give practical content to the said Article.
63. In the pre-1974 era, the judgments of this Court did refer to
the “rule of law” or “positive” aspect of Article 14, the
concomitant of which is that if an action is found to be arbitrary
D and, therefore, unreasonable, it would negate the equal protection
of the law contained in Article 14 and would be struck down on
this ground.”
42. Hiralal P. Harsora v. Kusum Narottamdas Harsora
(2016) 10 SCC 165, is a case in point. In this judgment, this Court struck
E down a portion of Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Section 2(q) of the said Act defined
“Respondent” as meaning any adult male person who is, or has been
in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom
the aggrieved person has sought any relief. This Court having regard
to the object sought to be achieved by the Act, struck down the
F
expression “adult male” as follows:
“39. A conspectus of these judgments also leads to the result
that the microscopic difference between male and female, adult
and non-adult, regard being had to the object sought to be
achieved by the 2005 Act, is neither real or substantial nor does
G it have any rational relation to the object of the legislation. In
fact, as per the principle settled in Subramanian Swamy
[Subramanian Swamy v. CBI, (2014) 8 SCC 682 : (2014) 6 SCC
(Cri) 42 : (2014) 3 SCC (L&S) 36] judgment, the words “adult
male person” are contrary to the object of affording protection
H to women who have suffered from domestic violence “of any
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 627
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
kind”. We, therefore, strike down the words “adult male” before A
the word “person” in Section 2(q), as these words discriminate
between persons similarly situate, and far from being in tune with,
are contrary to the object sought to be achieved by the 2005 Act.
xxx xxx xxx
B
44. An application of the aforesaid severability principle would
make it clear that having struck down the expression “adult male”
in Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act, the rest of the Section is left
intact and can be enforced to achieve the object of the legislation
without the offending words. Under Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act,
while defining “respondent”, a proviso is provided only to carve C
out an exception to a situation of “respondent” not being an adult
male. Once we strike down “adult male”, the proviso has no
independent existence, having been rendered otiose.”
43. In Secretary, Mahatama Gandhi Mission v. Bhartiya
Kamgar Sena (2017) 4 SCC 449, this Court referred copiously to the D
judgment in D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305, and
then held:
“88. What is the remedy open to the citizen and the
corresponding obligation of the judiciary to deal with such a
situation, where the inequalities are created either by the E
legislation or executive action? Traditionally, this Court and the
High Courts have been declaring any law, which created
inequalities to be unconstitutional, but in Nakara case [D.S.
Nakara v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S)
145] this Court realised that such a course of action would not
F
meet with the obligations emanating from a combined reading
of the directive principles and Article 14. Therefore, this Court
emphatically laid down in Nakara case [D.S. Nakara v. Union
of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305 : 1983 SCC (L&S) 145] that it is
possible to give an appropriate inductive relief by eliminating the
factors, which creates the artificial classification leading to a G
discriminatory application of law.”
44. Respectfully following the law laid down in these judgments,
and in order to read Section 32-F(1)(a) in conformity with Article 14,
we eliminate the words “..of the fact that he has attained majority..”
so that the intimation that is to be made by the landlord has to be made H
628 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A to tenants of all the three categories of landlords covered by the
provision.
45. It now remains to deal with some of the judgments of this
Court on the interpretation of Section 32-F. In Anna Bhau Magdum
v. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai (1995) 5 SCC 243, a minor landlord
B attained majority in 1965 i.e. before the 1969 Amendment Act came
into force. After adverting to the amendments made in 1969, this Court
held that for this reason the amendment did not apply to the facts of
that case. It was also found, as a matter of fact, that despite knowing
that the Respondent landlord would attain majority on 17.1.1965, the
tenant gave no intimation as required by sub-section (1A) to Section
C 32-F even within the amnesty period of two years granted by the said
sub-section. The only argument made on behalf of the tenant in that
case was that since there is an automatic purchase, the provisions of
sub-section (1A) are directory in nature. This was turned down stating
that the consequences of non-compliance of Section 32-F (1A) are laid
D down in Section 32-P(1) and that, therefore, the time period contained
in sub-section (1A) of Section 32-F is mandatory in nature. This case
is wholly distinguishable on its facts and lays down the law on Section
32-F(1A) with which we are not immediately concerned.
46. However, in Appa Narsappa v. Akubai Ganapati (1999) 4
E SCC 443, this Court referred to the landlady widow on the facts of
that case who had died in 1965, prior to the coming into force of the
Amendment Act of 1969. In this factual scenario, since the tenant did
not comply with the timeline of one year given to him, the right to
purchase of the tenant was stated to have come to an end. The
argument that one year should be from the date of knowledge was
F turned down in the following terms:
“4. It was submitted by the learned counsel that this being a
welfare legislation enacted for the benefit of tenants should be
construed in a liberal manner. He also submitted that the heirs
of the landlady had not given any intimation to the appellant about
G her death and therefore he could not have known who were the
heirs of the landlady and given intimation to them. He submitted
that the period of one year should be counted from the date of
the knowledge of the tenant. We cannot accept this submission
because the language of Sections 32-F and 31 is quite clear and
H the period of one year will have to be counted in accordance
VASANT GANPAT PADAVE (D) BY LRS. v. ANANT 629
MAHADEV SAWANT (D) THR. LRS. [R. F. NARIMAN, J.]
with the said provisions and not from the date of the knowledge A
of the tenant. The provision of law being clear, we cannot in such
a case grant relief on the basis of equity.”
Since this judgment does not square with object sought to be
achieved by the 1956 Amendment to the 1948 Act or to the declaration
of law in this judgment, it does not state the law correctly and is, B
therefore, overruled.
47. The next judgment that was cited before us is Sudam Ganpat
Kutwal v. Shevantabai Tukaram (2006) 7 SCC 200. After setting
out the relevant provisions of the Act, this Court held that on the facts
of that case since Section 31(3) had ceased to apply, Section 32-F(1) C
did not apply at all, as a result of which there was no need for the
tenant to issue any notice of intimation to the landlord. The other
judgments that were cited were distinguished in paragraph 27 stating
that they were all judgments in which Section 32-F(1A) would apply.
The facts of this case again are far removed from the facts of the
present case and the judgment has, therefore, no application to the law D
laid down in the present case.
48. The next judgment cited before us is Tukaram Maruti
Chavan v. Maruti Narayan Chavan, (2008) 9 SCC 358. This judgment
followed the law laid down in Appa Narsappa (supra) and on facts
held that the Appellant tenant had complete knowledge of the death of E
the widow in that case, as a result of which the Appellant’s contention
that he was confused as to who was the true owner was turned down.
To the extent that this judgment follows the law laid down in Appa
Narsappa (supra), this judgment also does not lay down the law
correctly and is overruled to this extent. F
49. It now only remains to consider some of Shri Bhasme’s other
arguments. The argument made based on Section 14(1)(a) that since
a tenant is bound to pay the rent every year before the 31 st May thereof,
the tenant is bound to know that the person to whom he is paying rent
has since died and that, therefore, knowledge cannot be brought in to G
the construction of Section 32-F need not detain us. On facts in the
present case, the landlady was actually at Mumbai, whereas the tenant
was at Ratnagiri. Also, Section 14(1)(b) makes it clear that in case the
tenant fails to pay rent before the 31st May of every year, the landlord
must first give a three months’ notice in writing informing the tenant
that he has not so paid the rent, within which period the tenant is given H
630 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 15 S.C.R.
A time to remedy the breach. On facts, there is nothing to show that any
such notice was given. The other emotive argument that in the
agricultural village world everyone knows about everybody else and
that, therefore, it may be assumed that a villager at Ratnagiri will know
about his landlord’s death equally cannot apply on the facts of this case
as the landlord lived and died in Mumbai. The other emotive argument
B
about the reverse situation obtaining today as opposed to the situation
obtaining in 1956, namely, that it is tenants who are now well off and
landlords who are poor is again a perception of learned counsel which
has no bearing either on the facts of this case or the law that needs to
be laid down.
C 50. The questions referred to us are now answered as follows:
(i) The object of the Amendment Act of 1969 is relevant
and applicable in deciding the scope of the right to
purchase by a tenant of a landlord who was a widow
or suffering from mental or physical disability on Tillers’
D day.
(ii) The successor-in-interest of a widow is obliged to send
an intimation to the tenant of cessation of interest of the
widow to enable the tenant to exercise his right of
purchase.
E
(iii) The decision in Appa Narsappa (supra) stands
overruled. The decision in Sudam Ganpat (supra)
stands distinguished as stated in paragraph 47 of the
judgment. The decision in Tukaram Maruti (supra), to
the extent that it follows the law laid down in Appa
F Narsappa (supra), stands overruled.
We, therefore, allow the appeals and set aside the judgment of
the High Court dated 1st August, 2014. As a result, the tenant’s intimation
of purchase of 2008 will now be taken on record by the authorities
under the Act, who may now proceed under the Act to determine
G purchase price and its payment consequent upon which the postponed
right of the tenant in this case to own the land will then come into being
upon the statutory conditions being met. The appeals are disposed of
accordingly.
H Ankit Gyan Appeals allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "tenancy"Sign in to search