Supreme Court Upholds Tenant’s Deemed Purchase Rights under Bombay Tenancy Act: Bayaji Sambhu Mali vs. Nazir Mohammed Balal Zari (2019)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 12 February 2019
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice K.M. Joseph

When a landlord, who was a minor at the time of the tiller’s day, attains majority, is the tenant required to give notice of their intention to purchase the land under Section 32F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, even if the landlord’s application for possession has been rejected? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent case, clarifying the interplay between deemed purchase and the requirement of notice under the Act. This judgment clarifies the rights of tenants in cases where landlords were minors on the tiller’s day.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Ashok Bhushan and Justice K.M. Joseph, delivered the judgment. The majority opinion was authored by Justice K.M. Joseph.

Case Background

The case involves a dispute between a tenant, Bayaji Sambhu Mali (the appellant), and a landlord, Nazir Mohammed Balal Zari (the first respondent), concerning land governed by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act). The core issue revolves around whether the tenant is a deemed purchaser of the land under Section 32 of the Act or if the case falls under Section 32F, which requires the tenant to give notice of their intention to purchase.

The landlord was a minor on April 1, 1957, also known as the “Tillers Day,” which is a crucial date under the Act. The landlord claimed to have attained majority on September 10, 1966, and subsequently filed an application before the Mamlatdar for personal cultivation of the land under Section 31(3) of the Act. The tenant contested this, asserting that he was a deemed purchaser under Section 32 of the Act. The landlord’s application for possession was initially dismissed on July 27, 1967.

The landlord then appealed, but the appeal was dismissed on March 9, 1968. The landlord further pursued the matter through a revision application, which was also dismissed on April 22, 1970, by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Following these unsuccessful attempts by the landlord, the tenant initiated proceedings under Section 32G of the Act in 1977. The Original Authority ruled against the tenant, stating that he had not complied with Section 32F of the Act. This decision was confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on September 30, 1978.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, is the primary legislation governing this case. Key provisions include:

• Section 29: This section outlines the procedure for taking possession of land. It states that a landlord can only obtain possession through an order from the Mamlatdar. An application must be made within two years from when the right to obtain possession accrues. It also provides that if a landlord makes an application under Section 31, the Mamlatdar must first decide if the conditions under Section 31A and 31B are satisfied.
• Section 31: This section deals with a landlord’s right to terminate a tenancy for personal cultivation or non-agricultural purposes. A landlord must give notice and apply for possession. If the landlord is a minor, they can give notice and apply for possession within one year of attaining majority.
• Section 32: This section states that on the “Tillers Day” (April 1, 1957), every tenant is deemed to have purchased the land they cultivate, free of encumbrances. This is subject to other provisions of the section and the succeeding sections. The first proviso to this section states that if a landlord’s application for possession under Section 29 is rejected, the tenant is deemed to have purchased the land on the date of the final rejection order.
• Section 32F: This section outlines the right of a tenant to purchase land when the landlord is a minor, widow, or a person with a disability. The tenant has one year from the expiry of the period during which the landlord can terminate the tenancy under Section 31 to exercise the right to purchase. The landlord must inform the tenant of attaining majority before the expiry of the period during which the landlord can terminate the tenancy under Section 31.
• Section 32F(1A): This provision mandates that a tenant who wishes to exercise the right to purchase under Section 32F(1) must notify the landlord and the Tribunal within the period specified in Section 32F(1).
• Section 32G: This section deals with the Tribunal’s role in publishing notices and determining the purchase price of land. It includes that the Tribunal must determine the price of land in the case of a tenant who is deemed to have purchased the land on the postponed date.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that their case should be governed by Section 29 read with Section 32 of the Act. Under these provisions, a tenant is deemed to have purchased the land if the landlord’s application for possession is rejected.
• The appellant contended that there is no requirement to issue a notice under Section 32F(1A) in cases of deemed purchase under Section 32.
• The appellant highlighted that the landlord’s application for possession was rejected at multiple levels, including by the Mamlatdar, the Appellate Authority, and the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal.
• The appellant emphasized that the documents proving the rejection of the landlord’s application were produced in the High Court during the review petition, although they were not considered earlier.
• The appellant relied on the judgments in Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti Narayan Chavan (D) by Lrs. and Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 358 and Sudam Ganpat Kutwal v. Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar (2006) 7 SCC 200, to support the argument that no notice is required under Section 32F(1A) in cases of deemed purchase.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent contended that it is mandatory to give a notice under Section 32F(1A) for a tenant to claim the right to purchase the land.
• The respondent argued that without such notice, the tenant cannot be deemed to have purchased the land.
• The respondent pointed out that the certified copies of the rejection orders were produced by the appellant only after the dismissal of the writ petition, during the review petition, and therefore, should not be considered.
• The respondent stated that the appellant had argued in the High Court that there was substantial compliance with Section 32F(1A), which indicates that the appellant was aware of the requirement of a notice.

Submissions of Parties

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue for consideration:

1. Whether the appellant, being a tenant, is required to issue a notice under Section 32F(1A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, when the tenant is already deemed to have purchased the land under Section 32 of the Act due to the rejection of the landlord’s application for possession?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

• Section 29 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: This section outlines the procedure for taking possession of land, requiring a landlord to obtain an order from the Mamlatdar.
• Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: This section deals with a landlord’s right to terminate a tenancy for personal cultivation or non-agricultural purposes.
• Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: This section provides that on the “Tillers Day,” every tenant is deemed to have purchased the land they cultivate. The first proviso states that if a landlord’s application for possession under Section 29 is rejected, the tenant is deemed to have purchased the land on the date of the final rejection order.
• Section 32F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: This section outlines the right of a tenant to purchase land when the landlord is a minor, widow, or a person with a disability.
• Section 32F(1A) of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: This provision mandates that a tenant who wishes to exercise the right to purchase under Section 32F(1) must notify the landlord and the Tribunal.
• Section 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: This section deals with the Tribunal’s role in publishing notices and determining the purchase price of land.
• Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti Narayan Chavan (D) by Lrs. and Ors. (2008) 9 SCC 358: This case discussed whether a tenant could exercise the right to purchase in the absence of intimation under Section 32F(1A). The court held that such notice is not mandatory when a widow landlady has already exercised her right under Section 31(1).
• Sudam Ganpat Kutwal v. Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar (2006) 7 SCC 200: This case clarified the interplay between Sections 31, 32, 32F, and 32G of the Act. It held that when a landlord has secured possession of part of the land under Section 31(1), there is no need for the tenant to give notice under Section 32F(1A).
• Amrit Bhikaji Kale and Ors. v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade and Anr. (1983) 3 SCC 437: This case held that on the tillers’ day, the landlord’s interest in the land gets extinguished, and the tenant becomes the owner. It also clarified that Section 32F has an overriding effect over Section 32, but only when the landlord is under a disability as specified in Section 32F.
• Anna Bhau Magdum, Since Deceased by LRs v. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai (1995) 5 SCC 243: This case held that the requirement under Section 32F(1A) is mandatory, and there cannot be any automatic purchase under Section 32 read with Section 32G in such a case.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Section 29, 31, 32, 32F, 32F(1A) and 32G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948: The Court interpreted these sections to clarify the interplay between deemed purchase and the requirement of notice under the Act.
• Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti Narayan Chavan (D) by Lrs. and Ors. [CITATION]: The Court distinguished this case, noting that it applied to situations where a widow landlady had already exercised her right under Section 31(1).
• Sudam Ganpat Kutwal v. Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar [CITATION]: The Court relied on this case to emphasize that when a landlord has secured possession of part of the land under Section 31(1), there is no need for the tenant to give notice under Section 32F(1A).
• Amrit Bhikaji Kale and Ors. v. Kashinath Janardhan Trade and Anr. [CITATION]: The Court used this case to highlight that on the tillers’ day, the landlord’s interest in the land gets extinguished and the tenant becomes the owner.
• Anna Bhau Magdum, Since Deceased by LRs v. Babasaheb Anandrao Desai [CITATION]: The Court distinguished this case, noting that it was not a case of a ‘postponed date’ within the meaning of the first proviso to Section 32(1).

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court emphasized that the appellant was a tenant of the first respondent and that the landlord’s application for possession had been rejected at multiple levels. This rejection, according to the Court, triggered the deemed purchase provision under Section 32 of the Act. The Court noted that the landlord’s unsuccessful attempts to gain possession were crucial in establishing the tenant’s deemed status. The Court observed that the documents proving the rejection of the landlord’s application were available and should have been considered by the lower courts. The Court also clarified that Section 32 and Section 32F deal with two mutually exclusive situations. If a person has a deemed status under Section 32, there is no need to apply for purchase under Section 32F. The Court also noted that the High Court and the authorities below had erred in not considering the documents produced by the appellant.

Fact:Law Ratio

The Court’s reasoning was based on a combined reading of Sections 29, 31, 32, and 32F of the Act. The Court clarified that Section 32 provides for a deemed purchase when a landlord’s application for possession is rejected. Section 32F applies when the landlord is a minor, widow, or person with a disability, and the tenant wishes to purchase the land. The Court emphasized that these are mutually exclusive situations. The Court noted that the High Court and the authorities below had erred in not considering the documents produced by the appellant.

The Court rejected the argument that the tenant was required to give notice under Section 32F(1A) because the tenant had already acquired the status of a deemed purchaser under Section 32. The Court also rejected the argument that the certified copies were produced late, stating that the documents were available and should have been considered. The Court emphasized that the tenant had acquired a deemed status with the rejection of the landlord’s application and was not obliged to do anything further.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “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 in the tenant.”
• “Section 32F has an overriding effect over Section 32 as it opens with a non obstante clause. The combined effect of Sections 32F and 32 is that where the landlord is under no disability as envisaged by Section 32F the tenant of such landlord by operation of law would become the deemed purchaser by where the landlord is of a class or category as set out in Section 32F, the date of compulsory sale would be postponed as therein provided.”
• “In a case covered by Section 29 read with Section 32(1) the tenant acquires the deemed status and in a case where a matter is covered by Section 32F, there is no deemed status for the tenant but he has to invoke provision of section 32F and issue a notice both to the landlord and to the Tribunal within the meaning of Section 32F(1A) and the matter has to be decided by the Authority.”

Key Takeaways

• Deemed Purchase: If a landlord’s application for possession is rejected, the tenant is deemed to have purchased the land under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.
• No Notice Required: In cases of deemed purchase under Section 32, the tenant is not required to give a separate notice under Section 32F(1A).
• Mutually Exclusive Situations: Section 32 and Section 32F deal with mutually exclusive situations. Section 32 applies when there is a deemed purchase, while Section 32F applies when the tenant wishes to purchase the land due to the landlord’s disability.
• Importance of Rejection Orders: The rejection of a landlord’s application for possession is crucial in establishing a tenant’s deemed purchase status.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned decisions passed by the High Court and restored the order passed by the Collector.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no specific amendment analysis in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a tenant who is deemed to have purchased land under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, due to the rejection of the landlord’s application for possession, is not required to issue a separate notice under Section 32F(1A). This clarifies the interplay between deemed purchase and the requirement of notice under the Act. This judgment also clarifies that Section 29 read with Sections 32 and 32F deal with two mutually exclusive situations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Bayaji Sambhu Mali vs. Nazir Mohammed Balal Zari clarifies that a tenant who is deemed to have purchased land under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, due to the rejection of the landlord’s application for possession, is not required to issue a separate notice under Section 32F(1A). This decision protects the rights of tenants who have acquired a deemed purchase status and ensures that they are not burdened with additional procedural requirements. The court emphasized the importance of considering all relevant documents and the interplay between the various sections of the Act.