You are on page 1of 27


SEC- 32(1)
WRIT PETITION NO. 2013 OF 2001 Jijabai Dinkar Jadhav V/s. Shri Haribhau Rangnath Kulkarni,


DATED : 11th January 2013.

The respondent - permanent tenant on tillers day- sublet the land held by him to the predecessor in title of the petitioner - as per the provisions of section 32(1) the petitioner would be a sub-tenant who is deemed to be a tenant of the land held by him on the tillers' day. In so far as contention of respondent regarding Rit-4even according to Rit-4, the possession would be of

the petitioner as sub-tenant who had agreed for cultivating the land on

the condition of giving half share of the crop to the tenant. Undisputedly, it is the petitioners predecessors in title who were in possession of the suit land on the tillers day. In that view of the matter and in view of provisions of sections 32(1) and 32-G of the said Act, the orders passed by learned ALT and learned SDO affirmed by leaned Tribunal in revision application cannot be faulted with.

Review jurisdiction

the scope of review jurisdiction is very limited.

The Tribunal can xercise review jurisdiction only for correcting an error apparent on the face of record. Tribunal while exercising review jurisdiction has crossed the limits of the review jurisdiction.

SEC- 2(18), 32(O)

WRIT PETITION NO. 6165 OF 2001 1. Shri Jagannath Vithu Jadhav V/s. 1. The State of Maharashtra. CORAM: B.R.GAVAI, J.

DATED : 11th January 2013.

JUDGMENTS RELIED IN THE CASEBhila KeshavPatil v. Ganpati Chunilal Kabre, 1972 (vol.LXXV) BLR 98; Dhond u Bapu Survey v. Aniruddh Yeshwant Vaidya (Spl.C.A.No.479/1972 dated 20th November 1975); Laxman Dhondi v. Yashodabai, 2005(1) Mh.L.J. 506; and Gulabrao Sahebrao v. Sayaji Shankar, 2004(1) Mh.L.J. 873. Dahya Lal v.Rasul Mahomed Abdul Rahim (supra). The Constitution Bench of the Apex Court,

s.2 (18) condition imposed by the statute is only - deemed tenant must be cultivating land "lawfully" : - not the condition that he must cultivate land with the consent of or under authority derived directly from the owner - To import such a condition it is to rewrite the section, and destroy contractual tenant not a"deemed tenant". In our view, all persons other those mentioned in cls. (a), (b) and (c) of s. 4 who belonging to lawfully cultivate than land persons its practical utility-


Whether or not their authority is derived directly from the owner of the land must be deemed tenants of the lands.

Merely because the petitioner failed to establish that he was not tenant on the tillers' day, he cannot be denied the benefit of section 32-O of the said Act, if it is found that the tenancy has been created after the tillers' day. Section 32-O of the said Act specifically creates right in favour of the tenant after the tillers' day to purchase the land held by him from the landlord. However, this is subject to limitation of one year- the period of one year provided for sending intimation under section 32-O will not commence until the landlord accepts the statutory tenancy or until his contention denying the tenancy is finally and conclusively overruled.

SEC -74
WRIT PETITION NO.987 OF 1995 Jamatul Muslimin Jama Mashid Mandiwali vs. 1. Shri Allimiya Shaikh Ahmed Bangi CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J DATED : 5.12.2012

JUDGMENTS RELIED IN THE CASE - 1975 Mh.L.J. (Janha Barke vs Rajesh)

2001 (3) S.C.C. 179 (Santosh Hazari vs Purshottam Tiwari) the S.D.O-. statutory authority expected to decide the Appeal as per provisions of section 74 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Act, 1948 has failed to appreciate the rival contentions and consideration therein is cryptic.

SEC -32, 32(F)

WRIT PETITION NO.1195 OF 1995 Hinurao Ganpati Mandhare vs. Mahadeo Vittal Mandhare CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J DATED : 30.11.2012

JUDGMENTS RELIED IN THE CASE Vishnu Shantaram Desai vs Smt Indira Anant Patkar 1971 (Vol 63) The Bombay Law Reporter 792. 1998 (1) Mh. L. J 562 Gajrabai Narayan Chauvan vs Ratnabai Vishnu Gaikwad

Sec 32- widow is deemed to have purchased the land on tillors day- Sec 32 (F)only a further protection if widow does not exercise her right and successor gets two years from the date on which her interest in the land ceases. Thus it is apparent that the right is to be exercised only once.

SEC -76 (Revision) (delay in filing Revision)

WRIT PETITION NO.373 OF 1997 and 374 of 1997 Shankar Ramrao Ragnekar vs. Narayan Sakharam Sawant CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI, J DATED : 30.11.2012

JUDGMENTS RELIED IN THE CASE M.M. College of Science Vs. R.T. Borkar 1997 (2) Mh. L. J. 168 National Building Construction vs Reginal Labour Commissioner 2006 (1) Mh. L. J. 669

The provisions of 1979 act limitation of 60 days for filing revision- the revisions filed after almost 4 years without any application for condonation of delay- only an affidavit explaining the delay filed- however the facts in affidavit are not disclosed in judgment- judgment does not show the application of mind by MRT and the thought process to condone the delay- the matter remanded with direction to decide the issue of delay first and then to look into the controversy in revision on merits.

SEC -76
WRIT PETITION NO.2539 OF 2012 Jayraj Kantilal Sonawala vs.


CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J DATED : 31.10.2012 and 1.11.2012

Application by tenants u S 70 (b) allowed by tahsildar- appeal to collectorMatter remanded to Nayab Tahsildar- allowed- appeal to SDO- allowed holding no evidence to show that the applicants are tenants- revision to MRT- matter remanded- therefore the writ petition- held- the court should not show sympathy to accommodate parties repeatedly- one does not remand if he is unsure of his decision- if parties are not diligent to produce evidence then dismissal of their claims by SDO is justified- the order of remand does not fit in the O XLI R 23, 23A, 25.

WRIT PETITION NO.11179 OF 2011 Jayraj Devidas vs. State of Maharashtra CORAM :G. S. Godbole, J DATED : 21.12.2012 S. 76, 76 (A)- There is nothing in the S. 76 or S. 76 (A) which takes away the jurisdiction of MRT to entertain the revision under S. 76 for challenging the order passed by the collector U/s 76- A


Jagannath Tukaram Jadhav vs. Anand Krishna Nalawade CORAM :G. S. Godbole, J DATED : 24.1.2012 Tahasildar and SDO are fact finding authoritites- MRT is normally bound by fact finding by thr Tahasildar and SDO unless shown perverse S 33 merely creates rights and does not provide for a remedy- the application contemplated U/s 33 (B) is essentially application U/s 29- The application U/s 88- C by the heir of the widow for certificate then this heir files for possession u/s 29- then the application is governed by provisions of 33B and 29 and not by provisions of s. 31thus only bonafide requirement and condition is S. 33 B (5) needs to be fulfilledthus in this case after receipt of certificate U/s 88 C the notice of termination given within one month is good- right created by sections 88- C and 33 B is peculiar right given to owner of very small pieces of lands and with limited income and was a conscious in-road in the rights of tenants to become a deemed purchaser.

WRIT PETITION NO. 753 OF 1991 Tukaram Dhondiba Chopade vs. Andappa Gena Walekar CORAM :G. S. Godbole, J DATED : 10.1.2012 Application U/s 32 (O)- order of statutory purchase passed- challenged by landlord u/s 31, 32R and 33 B- dismissed by tahsildar- appeal to SDO- remanded- Tahsildar held 32 (O) proceedings vitiated and certificate u/s 32 (M) not correct- appeal to SDO- held order of tahsildar without jurisdiction- revision to MRT- remanded back for fresh inquiry u/s 32(O)- therefore this WP- held- that thecontroversy involved in an application u/s 32 (O) was clearly a controversy which fell within the scope of sub clause (b) of S. 70 and the Mamalatdar and ALT, was the stutory authorirty who was conferred with the jurisdiction to decide the questionas to

whether the petitioner was tenent- thereforeit cannot be held to passed by an authority suffering from inherent lack of jurisdiction- petition allowed. WRIT PETITION NO.1308 OF 1998 Nivrutti Gngaram Pawar vs. Dinkar Maruti Jadhav CORAM :G. S. Godbole, J DATED : 13.12.2012

S. 6 and 6(A)- economic holding- the words economic holding and income of the landlord- will have to be construed in the context of only the bonafide requirement of the landlord- the bonafide requirement is established in present case- it is not necessary for heir of certificate landlord must establish the strict requirement of S. 88 C and must also have income less than Rs. 1500/- in the application u/s 33 B.

WRIT PETITION NO. 6559 OF 2002 Shankar Keshav Chopde vs. Dnyanu Babu Shinde CORAM :G. S. Godbole, J DATED : 25.11.2012 Civil suit- issue what is reasonable rent of suit land- referred to Mamalatdar U/s 43 (B) who has exclusive jurisdiction U/s 70 (ma) rent determined- Appeal to SDOdismissed- Revision to MRT- matter remanded- therefore this WP- held- the remand was unnecessary in the absence of any reasoning and also in the absence reasoning to the perversity of finding by SDO- MRT can decide the matter on the basis of material available on record.

WRIT PETITION NO. 5236 OF 1989 Laxman Maruti Kolathe vs. Baburao Mhasku Shendkar CORAM : Ranjit More, J DATED : 28.9.2011 Suit proparty allotted to Gajarabai in lieu of her maintenance- she inducted petitioner as tenant in 1956- held Gajarabai became an absolute owner of suit land by virtue of S. 14 (1) of Hindu Succession Act therefore petitioners induction can not be questioned- evidence shows petitioner was cultivating on tillers day therefore has become owner u/s 32 of the act- the subsequent mortgage deed for the suit land executed by Gajarabai in favour of petitioner does not affect petitioenrs right of tenancy as they are protected U/s 25 (A)

WRIT PETITION NO. 4951 OF 1991 Anant Chintaman Oze vs. Laxman Mahadu Nigrose CORAM :V. M. Kanade, J DATED : 21.2.2011 Application U/s 70 (b) before Tahsildar- rejected- appeal to SDO- remandeddismiss for default before Tahsildar- appeal to SDO- remanded- allowed by Tahsildar- appeal to SDO- dismissed- Revision to MRT- dismissed- therefore WPhigh court in writ jurisdiction can not act as appellate authority- scope in writ limited- writ dismissed


Dhanappa Balappa Sawale vs. Gurulingeshwar Devasthan CORAM :V. M. Kanade, J DATED : 17.1.2011 Petitioner initiated proceedings U/s 32 G- dropped by ALT as lands were deoshtan land- lands re-granted to respondent- again 32 G- allowed- appeal by Respondnetallowed- appeal to MRT- dismissed- holding subsequent proceedings barred (resjudicata) therefore WP- held- the property is trust property hence S.32 to R not applicable admittedly Respondent in possession no perversity in lower court order therefore no need to interfere under writ jurisdiction. WRIT PETITION NO.4107 OF1993 Appa Dadu Patil vs. The State of Maharashtra CORAM :V. M. Kanade, J DATED : 13.01.2011 Respondent No.2 has purchased suit property under S.32 G and has obtained certificate under S.32 N entered into agreement with petitioner petitioner and Respondent submit that the agreement of 1985 is actually of mortgage and not of sale so no contravention of S.84 C suo moto inquiry in 1988 held though no limitation prescribed under the act for inquiry there was delay and it was not initiated within reasonable time relied on Mohmad Kavi Mohmad Amin Vs.Fatimabai Ibrahim (1997) 6 SCC 71. WRIT PETITION NO.5199 OF 1993 Nanasaheb @ Shankarao Balasaheb Bhosale vs. Vinayak Aba Jagtap CORAM :V. M. Kanade, J

DATED :13.01.2011 S.43 1B and 43 1C clearly envisages that so long as a separate share of the landlord is not earmarked he is not entitled to seek possession the proceeding where pending at the time of 1964 amendment so the amended provisions under S.43 about transfer of matter to Collector is applicable.

WRIT PETITION NO.2704 OF 1992 and 2707 of 1997 Alladdin Bapubhai Mulla vs. Khanderao Ramrao Gaikwad CORAM :V. M. Kanade, J DATED :11.01.2011 Agreement between petitioner and respondent is not of mortgage and is of tenanacy- the inquiry pursuant to agreement declares respondent as tenent and given 32 (M0 certificate- revision to SDO- remanded- decided in favor of respondent- appeal to SDO- dismissed revision to MRT- dismissed held the name of the respondent entered into as tenant- no challenge by petitionerpetitioner remained absent in inquiry before tahasildar- no need to interefere in writ jurisdiction

WRIT PETITION NO.5065 OF 1991 1. Laxman Bhanu Gavane, Versus 1. Shashikala Namdeo Kalane, CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 3rd AUGUST, 2009. Application by certificate landlady U/s 33 B for possession- subsequently 32 M certificate issued in favour of the tenant held- All the submissions about

comparative holding are now become academic in view of the fact that a certificate under Section 32M of the said Act had already been issued before the Petition was filed. The respondents have paid the purchase price as required under Section 32G of the said Act and they are now recognized as owners of the lands.

WRIT PETITION NO.5146 OF 1994 Subhadra Nivrutti Dhere Versus Shankar Digambar Dixit CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 3rd AUGUST, 2009. Respondents are heirs of certificate landlord- original landlord filed application u/s 33 B for possession- However subsequently sold the land- petitioners contention that the requirement for self cultivation by the landlord is not bonafide as the land is sold by landlord- held- since the original landlord is expired it is necessary to ascertain the bonafide requirements of his heirs.

WRIT PETITION NO.1165 OF 1993 Waman Atmaram Lavand Versus Dattatraya @ Dattu Baba Lavand CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 7TH JULY, 2009. The initiation of proceedings under Section 84C of the said Act after six years is unacceptable. It is true that there is no limitation prescribed under Section 84C of

the said Act for commencing an enquiry. However, it is well settled that when the period of limitation is not prescribed under the provisions of law, action must be initiated within a reasonable time. The orders passed by all the Authorities below must be set aside as the petitioners have improved the land at their costs and have spent huge amounts for these improvements to the lands.

WRIT PETITION NO.5381 OF 1994 Shri Murgappa Shivarudrappa ... Petitioners v/s. Shri Amarsihna Babasaheb Dafale ... Respondent Mr.R.P. Walvekar i/b R.R. Salvi for Petitioner Mr.S.V. Sadavarte for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: JULY 7, 2009 ORAL JUDGEMENT: Exemption sought by the respondents u/S 88B- granted- not challenged by the petitioner- The respondent filed an application under section 32 P for restoration of the possession of the land of the Devasthan which was occupied by the petitioner. held even though before an order is passed under section 88 B of the act atenant occupying the land's of the charitable trust must be given notice as his valuable right or purchase the lands occupied by him under section 32 of the act would be seriously affected in the present case the petitioner has not challenged the order passed under section 88 B of the act. What is challenged are the orders passed by

the tenancy court and by the appellate authority and the revenue tribunal for restoration of possession- all the authorities below have rightly held that the petitioner had no right to continue in possession of the devasthan lands as there was no material before the authorities to establish that the petitioner was inpossession of the land on the tillers day. Had the petitioner in fact been in possession of the lands on the tillers day he would have exercised his option immediately for purchasing the land occupied by him. The petitioner in my opinion has rightly been evicted from the devasthan lands as he was unable to establish any right to occupy those lands.

WRIT PETITION NO.4891 OF 1991 Dhanwant Parashram Kadam ... Petitioner V/s. Smt.Putlabai Gulab Kadam & Ors. ... Respondents Mr.L.S. Gaikwad for Petitioner Mr.A.J. Joshi for Respondent No.2 CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 2nd JULY, 2009 Predecessor of the petitioner was declared as tenant on 11.1.1965 as he was in possession on tillers day however the inquiry u/S 32 G was postponed as the landlord was minor. Inquiry held subsequently in respect of the half portion of the land to the question of accepting another person than the petitioner as the tenant.held- It is now well settled that before the enquiry u/s 32G can be conducted and

the price of the land is determined, notice must be issued to all persons interested therein. In this case admittedly, Hari Narayan who was declared the tenant of the entire land had four sons and therefore when the enquiry u/s 32G was held in respect of half the land in 1987 it was incumbent on the authorities to issue notice to all his heirs. The order of the ALT and the Tribunal thus cannot be sustained.

WRIT PETITION NO.5934 OF 1991 Govind Babu Khot since deceased by Heirs and LRs ... Petitioners V/s. The State of Maharashtra ... Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 25th JUNE, 2009 The initiation of proceedings under Section 84C of the said Act after 3 years is unacceptable.

WRIT PETITION NO.149 OF 1993 Dnyaneshwar bhalchandra Jamdade ... Petitioner V/s. Kumar Babu Sonawane & Ors. ... Respondents CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: DECEMBER 19, 2008

The predecessor of Resp. 1 was tenant in 1951-52 and 1955-56. Inquiry started u/S 32 (1B) in 1971- the tenant showed inability to purchase the land- The landlord sold the land to Resp no 4 in 1973. Fresh inquiry started u/S 32 (1B) on the application of the tenant.- order of restoration of possession to tenant passedconfirmed by SDO and MRT- hence the WP by petitioner who purchased the land from Resp no. 4 in 1987- petitioner stated the land being watan land the tenancy was terminated under Bombay Inferior Village Watans Abolition Act, 1958 heldall the authorities below have held that the petitioner is not entitled to possession of the land since the tenant was entitled to purchase the land in view of the provisions of section 32(1B) of the BT&AL Act. The petitioner has already filed a civil suit in which he has sought to establish his title. Therefore, in my opinion, the petitioner does not deserve any relief in the present petition. There is no material on record to indicate that the tenancy had been terminated in view of the provisions of section 5 of the Watan Abolition Act. The tenant was in possession of the lands and continued in possession when he made the application under 32(1B). The authorities below have rightly held that the petitioner is not entitled to the possession of the lands. Assuming the land in question was watan land and could not be alienated or leased without the sanction of the State Government, such a contention was never raised by the erstwhile landlord in any proceeding. The Petitioner therefore cannot raise it for the first time in this Court.

WRIT PETITION NO.3787 OF 1991 Tatya Vithoba Dethe vs. Madhavdas K. Maysurkar CORAM :Nishita Mhatre J DATED :18.11.2008 Tatya was tenant sons of Tatya purchased land in 1956 1985 inquiry u/s.84B on ground that sale was not in favour of Tatya who was tenant sale declared in valid therefore present writ petition held sons were in joint family and they were cultivating it with Tatya who was Karta of the HUF therefore petitioners are also tenants u/s.2(18) of the act Also u/s.40 of the act the tenancy is continued to be in favour of heirs of Tatya as Tatyas tenancy was never terminated therefore sale u/s.64(2) (a)(i) is permitted to tenant is actual possession and it is not in contravention of S.63 and 64, - Even if in contravention it need not be declared invalid as u/s. 84 B the sale can be regularized on payment of penalty

WRIT PETITION NO.2265 OF 1993 Uday Narayan Apte vs. Shankar Ragho Bhadvankar CORAM :Nishita Mhatre J DATED :20.10.2008 Predecessor of petitioner was declared as heir in heirship proceedings During the pendency of the heirship proceedings the management of the land was with Court receiver Court receiver (Government) appointed Respondent No.1 o 3 to cultivate the land After the proceedings the possession of land was landed over to predecessor of petitioner and predecessor of Respondents consented to this 30 years later proceedings u/s. 70(b) filed by Respondents stating that were in possession on tillers day therefore are deemed purchasers held there is no documentary evidence to show Respondent were tenants there was no lease in their

favour The Respondent were put in possession by the court receiver and with the termination of management of the land by the court receiver, the respondent could not continue in possession of the land as tenants. The respondents by continuing to remain in possession of the land, after the court receiver handed over the possession of the lands to the petitioners, are mere trespassers and not deemed tenants u/s 4 of the act. u/s.4 of the Act.- S.2(32) of the Act which was relied upon by the revenue tribunal must be set aside as it is erroneous and contrary to the Provisions of law WRIT PETITION NO.4410 OF 1991 Dattatray Ganapat Gorade vs. Gourihar Mahadeo Gorade CORAM :V. C. Daga J DATED :17.10.2008 Predecessor of petitioner was tenant and purchased u/s.32 G. After his death his son became owner who sold the land to petitioner without mandatory permission u/s.43.- The procedure u/s.84C started and the land was forfeited the land was allotted to Respondent No.4 The order of allotment to Respondent No.4 in sought to be challenged under this writ petition held since the petitioner did not challenge the order of forfeiture the petitioner has no locus to challenge the order of the allotment He has not applied for allotment so on that account also he has no locus to challenge the order of allotment in favour of Respondent No.4 writ jurisdiction scope limited no perversity on face of it therefore writ petition dismissed. WRIT PETITION NO.1998 OF 1988 Akkatai Rama Porwadi vs. Shankar Bhima Magdum CORAM :V. M. Kanade, J DATED :10.10.2007

Tenant of a mortgager continues to get protection under BTAL Act even after the mortgage is redeemed and that under the provisions of S.2(18) the tenant is an agriculturist who holds the land on lease and includes a person who is deemed to be tenant under the provisions of this act. WRIT PETITION NO.4656 OF 1988 The Pune Panjarpole Trust vs. Baban Gabaji Saste CORAM :V. M. Kanade, J DATED :5.20.2007 S.2(5) to cultivate does not include naturally grown grass the trust which has taken the land on lease in 1947 for grazing cattle engage in activities of grazing of cattle and cutting the grass to feed animals none of these activities mean cultivating personally therefore the trust can not be said to be an agriculturist under section 2(2) and therefore the land cannot be held as agricultural land therefore the amendment of 1957 is not applicable to the Trust petitioner as it applies only to agriculturist who uses the land for grazing of his cattle.

WRIT PETITION NO. 195 OF 1988 Smt.Akkabai Bapurao Power V/s. Lahu Vithu Kurne, ALONGWITH

WRIT PETITION NO. 196 OF 1988 1. Smt.Akkabai Bapurao Power V/s. Lahu Vithu Kurne, CORAM : V.M. KANADE, J. DATED : SEPTEMBER 13, 2007 The submission of the petitioners that the authorities did not have inherent jurisdiction to pass an order under 32G since no intimation was given under Section 32F(1A) of the said Act, also cannot be accepted. Section 32F(1A) contemplates that after the period of disability is over, tenant has to give intimation to the landlord who has an intention to purchase the land. The question whether intimation is given or not, is obviously a question of fact. This question having been finally decided by the lower authorities in favour of respondent no.1, it cannot be said, therefore, that the lower authorities did not have inherent jurisdiction to pass an order under Section 32G.


Shri Raghunath Narayan Bokil V/s Shri Vithal Sawala Limbhore, CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 11th September, 2007 FACTS- The Respondent No.1- tenant-filed application under section 37 of the BT & AL Act, seeking restoration of half portion of the land which was being cultivated by the Petitioner. In these proceedings in the Consent Terms, Respondent No.1accepted half portion of the said land in question and gave up his claim in respect of remaining half portion. An order was passed in terms of the Consent Terms by the Tahsildar. Respondent No.1, thereafter, again, filed application under section 37 of the BT & AL Act, claiming possession of the remaining half portion of the suit land. This application was filed on the ground that the landlord had sold half portion which was in his possession to third party by registered agreement and, therefore, in view of the provisions of section 37 of the said Act, he was entitled to get possession of the balance land. HELD-

A perusal of the section 37 section clearly discloses that the said section gives a right to the tenant to seek back possession of the land whose tenancy was terminated. The section, however, carves out two exceptions to the right which accrues in favour of the tenant. The two conditions being (i) that the tenant cannot seek right of repossession of the property if the landlord has obtained from the tenant his refusal to accept the tenancy on the same terms and conditions or (ii) if the landlord has offered in writing to give the land to the tenant on the same terms and conditions and the tenant has failed to accept the offer within three months from the receipt thereof. If these two conditions are not shown to exist then the tenant would continue to have a right atleast for a period of 12 years from the date on which the landlord has taken possession of the land for personal cultivation. In this case, however, after the said application was filed, Consent Terms have been filed by the parties. The Consent Terms, in terms state that the tenant has given up his claim of tenancy and he has done so in writing of the Consent Terms which were accepted by Tahsildar when an order to that effect was passed in terms of the Consent Terms. The tenant, having accepted in writing and having refused to accept the tenancy in respect of half portion of the land, it was not open for the tenant to re-agitate the issue by filing second application under section 37. Particularly because when the first application under section 37 was filed by Respondent No.1, he was seeking the entire land. It was alleged in the first

application that the entire land was given by the Petitioner to Respondent Nos. 3 to 5 and after having made this allegation seeking return of the entire land, he had accepted half portion of the said land. Therefore, it cannot be said that Respondent No.1 had refused to accept the tenancy in respect of the remaining land on the same terms and conditions.


th SEPTEMBER, 2007. The landlady was a widow- In view of provisions of Section 31 and Section 32F , tenancy proceedings U/s.32-G were postponed. On 03/06/1970, the suit lands were gifted away by the landlady through a gift deed to the Petitioner herein. the purchase price was paid pursuant to the requirement U/s.32F(I)(a) have been complied with by the tenants. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has observed that as when the proceedings U/s.32-G were dropped in the year 1968 at that time tenants had already declared their intention to purchase the suit lands even when the landlady was alive. However, it was noted that tenants had paid the purchase price on 18/01/1971 pursuant to order of Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T. This purchase price has been paid within six months from the date on which land was gifted by the landlady to the present Petitioner and therefore, within period of six months from the date on which landlady ceases to have any interest in the land therefore the intimation U/s 32F (1) (a) was, in fact, given in the prescribed form to the concerned person namely landlady by the Petitioner herein.

Bombay High Court

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATEJURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4595 OF 1984 Shripad Yeshwant Kulkarni V/s Shri Mahadeo Shankar Jadhav CORAM: V.M. KANADE, J. DATE : 2 nd August, 2007 Land belongs to inor who was given adoption the natural guardian of the

petitioner viz his mother who had taken him in adoption had given the land on rent to the respondents - tenants. She had, in turn, issued receipts in respect of the payment of the rent from time to time an intimation was given by brother of the minor for arrears of the rent and proceedings U/s 29 initiated by the brother for taking possession back on the ground of arrears of rent- held- the brother is a third party and not connected with the suit property therefore intimation by him can

never be construed to be an intimation within the meaning of section 14(1)(a) or section 25(2) of the said B.T. & A.L. Act. The natural mother of the petitioner during the period when the petitioner was a minor having issued the rent receipts and having given evidence before authorities that she had received rent, there was no occasion for the tenants - respondents herein to have taken any cognizance of such notices being issued by the natural brother of the petitioner. Consequently, in view of the aforesaid, notices which were issued by the natural brother of the petitioner were illegal and could not be construed to be notices under the aforesaid sections and, therefore, the petitioner, could not, on the basis of these notices which were per se illegal, would have taken out proceedings for recovery of possession under section 29 of the B.T. & A.L. Act.