http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: JAYKUMAR GANPATI WAIKAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NIVRITTI SAKHARAM TITWE & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/09/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  by special  leave arises from the judgment dated November  23,1978 of  the  High  Court  of  Bombay  in Special Civil  Application No.  2589/74 filed  under Article 227 of the Constitution.      The admitted  facts are  that the appellant was a minor when his  adoptive mother  Guru Santabai  Ganpati Waykar had initiated the  proceedings under Section 31(3) of the Bombay Tenancy and  Agricultural Lands  Act, 1948  (for  short  the "Act") for  ejectment of the respondent-tenant on the ground that  she   was  entitled   to  resume   the  land.  Pending proceedings, she  died and thereafter the appellant had come on record.  Admittedly, as  on the  date of the death of his mother the  appellant was  a minor.  The  proceedings  under Section 31(3)  ultimately ended  in dismissal of the suit on March 13, 1972. In the meanwhile, the appellant had attained majority on  March 19,  1968. Resultantly,  the  tenant  got issued notice on April 21, 1968 under section 32F of the Act opting  to   purchase  the   land  under   Section  32.  The application, appeal  and the  revision arising under the Act came to  be dismissed. Thus the tenant-respondent filed writ petition in  the High  Court. The  writ petition was allowed and it  was held that the responded was entitled to purchase the lands  since as  on April  1, 1957, the tillers‘ day, he was in  possession but  he could  not opt  to  purchase  the property due  to the disability of the widow, which stood in his way  under Section  32F of  the Act. Thus this appeal by special leave.      The question  is: whether  the respondent had exercised that right  under Section  32F of  the Act  within one year? Section 32F of the Act envisages as under:-      "32F. (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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

    landlord is  entitled to  terminate      the tenancy  under Section  31  and      for enabling the tenant to exercise      the   right    of   purchase,   the      landlords 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."      It is  seen that  the widow  had already  exercised the option to  terminate the  tenancy  of  the  tenant  and  the proceedings were pending in the appropriate forum during the course  of   which  the  widow  died.  On  her  demise,  the appellant, who  was admittedly  a minor yet another disabled landlord came  on record  as  legal  representative  of  the adoptive mother.  He was  also under  disability. It is also further seen  that the proceedings under Section 31(3)  came to be terminated on March 13, 1972. A literal interpretation of Section  32F would  indicate that widow, the minor or the disabled landlord,  on minor’s attaining majority, cessation of disability shall be required to intimate to the tenant of his terminate  the tenancy  under Section  31(3) of the Act. Admittedly, the  mother having already opted for termination of the  tenancy for  personal resumption  and the  appellant having been  a minor,  stepped into  the shoes of his mother mother and  continued the  proceedings for resumption of the land; those  proceedings, as  stated  earlier,  came  to  be terminated on  March  13, 1972. Resultantly, even before the proceedings came  to be  terminated, the tenant had opted to purchase the  property by  issuing the  notice on  April 21, 1968. Admittedly,  the appellant  had attained  majority  on March 19,  1968 and  the notice  of option  to purchase  the property was  exercised  by  the  tenant  within  one  month thereafter. Under these circumstances, the limitation of one year had  not expired. Since the mother,  disabled landlady, was  continuing  the  proceedings  and  on  her  demise  the appellant having  got substituted  himself as landlords, but he being  further disabled  landlords,  the  need  to  issue notice to  the mother of the appellant did not arise because she had  already exercised the option under Section 31(3) to resume the  land by  terminating the  tenancy  for  personal cultivation and  the proceedings  therefore were  initiated. Since she died pending proceedings and in the meanwhile, the appellant had attained majority, the need to issue notice by the tenant  opting to purchase the property arose only after the disability  ceased. The  disability ceased  on March 19, 1968 and the notice of option was given by the tenant within one month thereafter, namely, on April 21, 1968.      Shri  Krishna   Mahajan,  learned   counsel   for   the appellant, placed  reliance on  the judgment of the Division Bench of  the Bombay  High Court  in Harshavardhan Shrinivas Potnis Vs. Mahadu Pundalik  Gangurde [AIR 1980 Bom. 198] and contended that  irrespective of  his attaining  majority  or disability within  one year  from the  date of the demise of his mother,  the respondent  was to  exercise the option and had not done so. Therefor, the respondent is not entitled to the benefit.  We find  no force  in the  contention. In that case, the  facts were  that the mother who was widow had not exercised the  that the  Section 31(3)  of the  Act. On  her demise, the  minor who  succeeded by  virtue  of  virtue  of bequeath made  by the  widow had exercised the option within one year  from the  date of  the demise of the mother-donor. Therefore, it was interpreted that Section 32F and 31(3) are

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

to  be   read  together  and  harmonious  interpretation  is required to  be given.  In this  case that question does not arise for consideration.      It is  also seen that the widow mother of the appellant had already  exercised the  option under  Section 31(3)  and continued  the   proceedings   pending   which   she   died. Subsequently, the  appellant came  on  records  as  a  legal representative  and   continued  the  proceedings.  As  held earlier, it  is the  mandatory duly  on the minor landlords, after attaining  majority, to  issue notice  to  the  tenant calling upon  him, whether  he would  exercise his option to purchase,  as  envisaged  under  Section  32F  of  the  Act. Admittedly, he  did not  issue any such notice. On the other hand,  the   tenant  himself,   on  becoming  aware  of  the appellant’s becoming  major, issued  the notice on April 21, 1968 exercising  the option  to purchase  the property under Section 32F  of the  Act. Therefore,  we  do  not  find  any illegality in  the ultimate  conclusion reached  by the High Court though  this consideration was adverted to by the High Court.      The appeal is accordingly dismissed, but in the circumstances, without costs.! Kumbhar Dhirejlal Mohenlal V State of Gujarat Present:               Hon’ble Mr.Justice M.K.Mukherjee               Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.P.Kurdukar Sushil Kumar, Sr.Adv, Satpal Singh, R.C.Kaushik, Dinesh Kumar Garg, Advs. with him for appellant B.V.Desai, Sr.  Adv.(Ms.Alka Agrawal)  Adv.  for  Ms.H.Wahi, Adv. for the Respondent                       J D G E M E N T      The following Judgment of the Court was delivered: