Land Rights of Tenants: Supreme Court Refers Case to Larger Bench for Review (14 December 2018)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 14 December 2018

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Ashok Bhushan, J. and Ajay Rastogi, J.

When a landlord is unable to manage their property due to certain disabilities, what happens to the rights of their tenants? The Supreme Court of India recently examined this question, specifically focusing on the rights of tenants to purchase land when the landlord is a widow or has a mental or physical disability. This case involves a dispute over the interpretation of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and whether a landlord’s legal heirs must inform a tenant about the end of such a disability, so that the tenant can exercise their right to purchase the land. The bench comprised Justices Ashok Bhushan and Ajay Rastogi.

Case Background

The case revolves around land originally owned by Balwant Sawant in Ratnagiri, Maharashtra. After Balwant Sawant’s death on 10 May 1950, his widow, Smt. Indirabai Balwant Sawant, inherited the property. The tenants of the land were the predecessors of the appellants in this case. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, was amended in 1957, introducing Section 32, which allowed tenants to purchase the land they cultivated from their landlords. However, this purchase was suspended in cases where the landlord was a widow, as was the case with Smt. Indirabai. Smt. Indirabai executed a Will on 12 May 1975, in favor of Anant Mahadev Sawant, the respondent. Smt. Indirabai passed away on 7 May 1999, and Anant Mahadev Sawant’s name was entered into the Revenue Records on 29 February 2000. The tenants were not informed of either the death or the mutation of the land.

In 2008, after learning about Smt. Indirabai’s death and the mutation of the land, the tenants applied to the Additional Tahsildar for fixing the purchase price of the land under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Additional Tahsildar allowed the application on 9 September 2011, stating that the tenants were eligible to purchase the land. However, this decision was overturned by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 8 January 2013, who stated that the tenants had lost their right to purchase the land for not issuing a notice within the time prescribed under Section 32F of the Act. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal upheld this decision on 20 April 2013, leading to the tenants filing writ petitions in the High Court, which were subsequently dismissed on 1 August 2014. This led to the current appeal before the Supreme Court.

Timeline:

Legal Framework

The core of this case lies in the interpretation of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, specifically Sections 31, 32, and 32F.

✓ Section 31 of the Act outlines a landlord’s right to terminate a tenancy for personal cultivation or non-agricultural purposes. It also provides special provisions for landlords who are minors, widows, or persons with disabilities. According to Section 31(3), such landlords or their successors can terminate a tenancy within one year from the date the disability ceases or the widow’s interest in the land ends.

✓ Section 32, as amended in 1957, stipulates that on “Tillers Day” (1 April 1957), tenants are deemed to have purchased the land they cultivate from their landlords. However, this provision is suspended if the landlord is a widow or suffers from other disabilities as mentioned in Section 31(3).

✓ Section 32F provides the right to purchase land to tenants where the landlord is a minor, widow, or a person with disabilities. This section states that the tenant has one year from the expiry of the period during which such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under Section 31 to exercise their right to purchase.

The relevant parts of the sections are quoted below:

“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 31A to 31D (both inclusive), 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:–– (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 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. (3) Where a landlord is a minor, or a widow, or a person subject to mental or physical disability then such notice may be given [and an application for possession under section 29 may be made,]–– (i) by the minor within one year from the date on which he attains majority; (ii) by the successor-in-title of a widow within one year from the date on which her interest in the land ceases to exist; (iii) within one year from the date on which mental or physical disability ceases to exist; and (iv)        [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 the 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 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].”

“32. Tenants deemed to have purchased land on tillers’ day.- [(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 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; (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 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 his tenancy on any of the grounds specified in section 14, or has so terminated the tenancy but has not applied to the Mamlatdar on or before the 31st day of March 1957 under section 29 for obtaining possession of the lands] : … …… …”

“32F. Right of tenant to purchase where landlord is minor, etc.- (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 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 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 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 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]. (b)xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [(1A) A tenant desirous of exercising the right conferred on him 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 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 years from the commencement of that Act]. (2) The provisions of sections 32 to 32E (both inclusive) and sections 32G to 32R (both inclusive) shall, so far as may be applicable, apply to such purchase.”

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

✓ The appellants contended that under Section 32 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, they were deemed to have purchased the land on the Tillers Day. However, this purchase was suspended because the landlady was a widow, who had protection under Section 31(3).

✓ They argued that since the landlady or her legal heirs never gave notice for termination of tenancy under Section 31(3), the appellants should be treated as having purchased the land after the expiry of the period mentioned in Section 31(3).

✓ The appellants submitted that they gave notice of their intention to purchase the land under Section 32F as soon as they came to know about the death of the landlady. They argued that the legal heirs of the landlady should have given notice informing them of her death and their intention to terminate the tenancy.

✓ The appellants also argued that they are permanent tenants, and therefore, the provisions of Section 31 were not applicable to them, meaning there was no limitation period for purchase by the tenants.

Respondents’ Arguments:

✓ The respondents argued that the appellants had not exercised their right to purchase within the time stipulated under Section 32F and therefore, had lost their right to purchase the land.

✓ They contended that the death of the landlady occurred on 7 May 1999, and the appellants could not apply for purchase in 2008 simply because they were not aware of her death.

✓ The respondents submitted that the period for exercising the right of purchase is statutorily fixed and cannot be extended. They relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Appa Narsappa Magdum (D) Through LRS. Vs. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar and Others, (1999) 4 SCC 443, to support their arguments.

Submissions by Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the object and purpose of amendment made in Section 32F(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 ?

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.

3. In the event the answer to above question (1) or (2) is in affirmative, whether decision of this Court in Appa Narsappa Magdum, Sudam Ganpat Kutwal and Tukaram Maruti Chavan (supra) needs reconsideration and explanation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Cases:

✓ Amrit Bhikaji Kale and Others Vs. Kashinath Janardhan Trade and Another (1983) 3 SCC 437 – This case discussed the object of the amendment Act No. 15 of 1957, which made tillers of the soil the owners of the land. The court noted that Section 32F postpones the date of compulsory purchase by the tenant where the landlord is a minor or a widow.

✓ Anna Bhau Magdum, since deceased by His Legal Representatives Vs. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai, (1995) 5 SCC 243 – This case examined Section 32F(1A) of the 1948 Act, holding that the requirement of intimation by the tenant to the landlord is mandatory.

✓ Appa Narsappa Magdum (D) Through LRS. vs. Akubai Ganpati Nimbalkar & others, (1994) 4 SCC 443 – This case dealt with the interpretation of Sections 32F and 31, holding that the period of one year for exercising the right to purchase is counted as per the provisions of the Act and not from the date of knowledge of the tenant.

✓ Sudam Ganpat Kutwal, Power-of-Attorney-Holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle Vs. Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar (Dead) by LR. Maruti Shankar Pachpute, (2006) 7 SCC 200 – This case considered Sections 31 and 32F, concluding that where a widow landlord has taken possession of part of the land, the tenant is not required to issue a notice of intimation.

✓ Tukaram Maruti Chavan Vs. Maruti Narayan Chavan (Dead) by LRS. And Others (2008) 9 SCC 358 – This case held that the tenant is under a legal obligation to give notice of intention to purchase the land as required under Section 32F.

Legal Provisions:

✓ Section 31 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which deals with the landlord’s right to terminate tenancy for personal cultivation and non-agricultural purposes.

✓ Section 32 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which provides for tenants being deemed to have purchased land on Tillers Day.

✓ Section 32F of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which outlines the right of a tenant to purchase land when the landlord is a minor, widow, or a person with disabilities.

Authorities Considered by the Court

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

✓ Amrit Bhikaji Kale and Others Vs. Kashinath Janardhan Trade and Another [(1983) 3 SCC 437]: The Court acknowledged this case for explaining the object of the 1957 amendment, which aimed to make tillers of the soil the owners of the land.

✓ Anna Bhau Magdum, since deceased by His Legal Representatives Vs. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai [(1995) 5 SCC 243]: The Court recognized this case for holding that the intimation by the tenant to the landlord under Section 32F(1A) is mandatory.

✓ Appa Narsappa Magdum (D) Through LRS. vs. Akubai Ganpati Nimbalkar & others [(1994) 4 SCC 443]: The Court noted that this case had rejected the argument that the period for purchase should be counted from the tenant’s knowledge of the landlord’s death. The Supreme Court referred this judgement for reconsideration.

✓ Sudam Ganpat Kutwal, Power-of-Attorney-Holder of Shankar Sitaram Bhosle Vs. Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar (Dead) by LR. Maruti Shankar Pachpute [(2006) 7 SCC 200]: The Court noted this case for concluding that where a widow landlord has taken possession of part of the land, the tenant is not required to issue a notice of intimation. The Supreme Court referred this judgement for reconsideration.

✓ Tukaram Maruti Chavan Vs. Maruti Narayan Chavan (Dead) by LRS. And Others [(2008) 9 SCC 358]: The Court acknowledged this case for stating that the tenant is under a legal obligation to give notice of intention to purchase under Section 32F. The Supreme Court referred this judgement for reconsideration.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s reasoning was primarily influenced by the need to ensure that tenants are able to effectively exercise their right to purchase land, especially when the landlord has a disability. The court emphasized the following points:

✓ Legislative Intent: The court noted that the amendments made in 1969 to Section 32F were intended to enable tenants to exercise their right of purchase. This intent should be extended to all tenants of landlords who were suffering from a disability on the Tillers Day.

✓ Knowledge of Cessation of Disability: The court highlighted that the tenant’s knowledge of the cessation of the landlord’s disability is a crucial factor in determining when the period for exercising the right to purchase begins.

✓ Effective Exercise of Right: The court emphasized that the right to purchase should be interpreted in a manner that makes it workable, effective, and meaningful for the tenant.

✓ Need for Reconsideration: The court felt that the previous judgments in Appa Narsappa Magdum, Sudam Ganpat Kutwal and Tukaram Maruti Chavan did not fully consider the impact of the 1969 amendment and the tenant’s lack of knowledge of the cessation of the landlord’s disability.

Ratio of Fact to Law:

The ratio of fact to law in this judgment is complex. The case is deeply rooted in the specific facts of the land dispute, including the dates of death, the landlady’s disability, and the tenants’ actions. However, the court’s reasoning primarily focused on legal interpretation, particularly the interpretation of Sections 31, 32, and 32F of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The court’s decision to refer the case to a larger bench indicates that it wanted to ensure that the legal principles are applied in a way that is consistent with the legislative intent and promotes fairness and equity.

Final Decision

The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments and the relevant legal provisions, decided to refer the case to a larger bench. The court found that the issues raised in the case required a more comprehensive examination, particularly with regard to the interpretation of Section 32F and the tenant’s right to purchase land when the landlord is a widow or has a disability. The court determined that the previous judgments on the matter needed to be reconsidered in light of the 1969 amendment, and the larger bench was deemed necessary to provide a more definitive interpretation of the law.

Flowchart of the Case Process

Ratio of the Case