Bombay High Court
Shri Jagnath Tukaram Jadhav vs Shri Anand Krishna Nalawade on 24 January, 2012
Author: G.S.Godbole
Bench: G.S.Godbole
-1- 201-wp-5332-1998
srj
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.5332 OF 1998
1 Shri Jagnath Tukaram Jadhav ]
2 Shri Balu Tukaram Jadhav ]
(since deceased) through his legal heirs ]
2a-Shri Shrikrishna Balwant Jadhav(son) ]
2b-Smt.Girijabai Balwant Jadhav(wife) ]
2c-Sou.Sitabai Ramchandra Chavan ]
(daughter) ]
2d-Sou. Samidra Baban Chavan(daughter) ]
2e-Sou. Sangeeta Shivaji Chavan(daughter)]
All are residing at Prabhuchiwadi, ]
Kharshi Tarf, Kudal, Taluka Jaoli, ]
District - Satara. ]
3 Shri Datta Tukaram Jadhav ]
(since deceased) through his legal heirs ]
3a-Smt. Gunabai Dattu Jadhav(wife) ]
3b-Shri Ramchandra Dattatraya Jadhav ]
(son) ]
3c-Shri Laxman Dattatraya Jadhav(son) ]
All are residing at Prabhuchiwadi, ]
Kharshi Tarf, Kudal, Taluka Jaoli, ]
District - Satara. ]
4 Shri Sarjerao Tukaram Jadhav ]
5 Shri Shivaji Tukaram Jadhav ]
6 Shri Nathu Tukaram Jadhav ]
7 Shri Krishna Tukaram Jadhav ]
Nos.1 to 7 all adult, Occ: Agricultural ]
residing at: Village Kharsee, Prabhuchiwadi ]
Kharshi, Tal: Javalee, Dist- Satara. ] .. Petitioners.
V/s.
Shri Anand Krishna Nalawade ]
Adult, Occ: Service, residing at: Village Khadse ]
Prabhuchiwadi, Tal: Javali, Dist- Satara. ] .. Respondent.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
-2- 201-wp-5332-1998
Mr. A. V. Anturkar with Mr. Prathmesh Bhargude, for the Petitioners.
Mr. S. G. Karandikar with Mr. C. S. Joshi, for the Respondent.
CORAM : G.S.GODBOLE,J.
RESERVED ON : 21st DECEMBER, 2011.
PRONOUNCED ON :
P.C:-
1 Heard Mr. Anturkar, for the Petitioners and Mr. S. G.
Karandikar, along with Mr. C. S. Joshi, for the Respondent.
2As is usual in proceedings arising out of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (herein after referred to as " the Tenancy Act"); this is the third round of litigation in the High Court. The case has already traveled once to Delhi and twice earlier to this Court.
BRIEF RESUME OF FACTS 3 Facts which are otherwise admitted and which emerge from the proceeding are as under;
(a) Lands bearing Survey No.37/4 and 38/6 at Village Kharshi, Prabhuchiwadi, Tal- Javali, District - Satara were owned by one Nivrutti D. Shinde who admittedly died long before the tillers day defined under the said Tenancy Act. As on tillers day, his widow- Rangubai was the owner of the land in question. Consequently, tillers day was postponed.
On 9th September, 1966, Rangubai adopted the present Respondent and thereafter she died on 21st April, 1971, leaving behind the Respondent as ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
-3- 201-wp-5332-1998 her sole successor in interest.
(b) The Respondent thereafter filed an application for grant of Certificate under Section 88-C of the Tenancy Act which was numbered as Tenancy Case No. 10 of 1971 and was dismissed by Tahasildar Jawali by Judgment and Order dated 25th July, 1977. Aggrieved by this order, the Respondent filed Tenancy Appeal No.82 of 1977 before the S.D.O. Satara who dismissed the same. Hence, the Respondent filed Writ Petition No. 3310 of 1981, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge, R. A. Jahagirdar J. by Judgment and Order dated 17th June, 1983 and it was directed that Certificate under Section 88-C of the Tenancy Act should be issued.
(c) This order of Justice Jahagirdar was challenged by filing Civil Appeal No.5923 of 1983 in the Supreme Court of India. The Division Bench of Supreme Court directed that the order of the learned Single Judge should not be disturbed. However, the Supreme Court clarified that in the event of any further proceedings being taken on the basis of the Certificate that the High Court directed to issue being Certificate under Section 88-C(4) of the Tenancy Act, it shall be open to the Appellants therein (petitioners herein) to urge amongst other defences, the contentions that the proceeding is not tenable in view of the fact that two earlier applications filed by Rangubai for possession had been rejected.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 ::: -4- 201-wp-5332-1998
(d) Accordingly, the Mamlatdar issued Certificate on 18th December,
1989. But on the next day i.e. 19th December, 1989, the execution of the order dated 18th December, 1989 was stayed by S.D.O. Satara. The Petitioners had filed Tenancy Appeal Nos.5 of 1989 and 86 of 1989 before the S.D.O. Satara, apparently, against order granting Section 88-C Certificate. The S.D.O. Satara allowed both the Appeals by order dated 20th March, 1990. Thereafter, probably being unaware about the order dated 20th March, 1990 passed by S.D.O. Satara, the Respondent filed an application under Section 33-B of the Tenancy Act before the Tahsildar/Mamlatdar at Jaoli for possession. This application was filed after issuing notice to the tenant and to the Mamlatdar on 17th January, 1990.
(e) Aggrieved by the order dated 20th March, 1990 passed by S.D.O., Satara, the present Respondent filed Writ Petition Nos.3020 of 1990 and 3027 of 1990 in this Court. By Judgment and Order dated 14/15th February, 1995, the learned Single Judge (M. L. Dudhat J.) allowed both the Writ Petitions. The order of S.D.O., Satara was set aside and it was directed that the proceedings filed by Respondent under Section 33-B r/w Section 29 of the Tenancy Act shall be disposed off on or before 31st July, 1995. The Petitioners filed an application for review being C.A. No.6148 of 1995 which was also disposed off by Justice M.L. Dudhat J. by order ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
-5- 201-wp-5332-1998 dated 9th November, 1995.
(f) Thereafter, on 19th December, 1996, the Tahsildar, Jaoli at Medha allowed Tenancy Case No.18 of 1995 and an order of eviction was passed under Section 33-B r/w Section 29 of the Tenancy Act against Petitioners.
Aggrieved by this, the Petitioners filed Tenancy Appeal No.4 of 1996 before the S.D.O. Satara which was dismissed by order dated 30th December, 1996. Aggrieved by this order, the Petitioners filed Tenancy Revision Application No.3 of 1997 before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, which has been dismissed on 10th July, 1998 by the impugned order. Aggrieved by this, present Writ Petition has been filed.
SUBMISSIONS OF PETITIONERS 4 Mr. Anturkar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners has advanced three principal submissions, which are as under:-
(i) The mere Certificate under Section 88-C is not sufficient and bona fide requirement is to be independently proved by the landlord. He submitted that the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has not given independent findings of fact. According to Mr. Anturkar, though there is some discussion about the controversy in the Judgment of the Tahsildar, there is no elaborate discussion in support of the finding of the fact that the requirement of Respondent was bona fide. Mr. Anturkar submitted that merely on account of the fact that the Respondent was given a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
-6- 201-wp-5332-1998 Certificate under Section 88-C, it did not follow as a corollary that the requirement is bona fide or that he was entitled to get restoration of possession under Section 88-B.
(ii) The second submission of Mr. Anturkar is to the effect that application is made after three months from the date of receipt of Certificate under Section 88-C and hence it was liable to be rejected. He submitted that the Certificate was actually delivered on 18th December, 1989 whereas according to the Respondent, the application was filed on 16th April, 1990. According to Mr. Anturkar, in fact, application was not filed on 16th April, 1990 but was filed some time in the year 1995, after the decision of the two Writ Petitions which were allowed by Justice M. L. Dudhat. He further submitted that assuming for the sake of argument, without admitting, that the application had been filed on 16th April, 1990;
even then, the application was clearly barred by time. He relied on Section 33-B and submitted that no extension of time was contemplated and the application had been filed clearly beyond three months and was liable to be dismissed. Mr. Anturkar alternatively submits that the application under Section 33-B was not tenable and not maintainable.
Hence, Respondent had absolutely no right or cause of action to file application. He submitted that once the time had started to run on 18th December, 1989, even if it is assumed that the Certificate under Section ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
-7- 201-wp-5332-1998 88-C or the order granting the Certificate was subsequently stayed on 19th December, 1989, the time which has started to run will not stop in view of the stay order of 19th December, 1989. According to Mr. Anturkar, there was no stay on the Certificate but only execution of the order granting Certificate was stayed and, hence, in fact, there was no effective stay order.
(iii) The third submission of Mr. Anturkar is to the effect that Section 33- B of the Tenancy Act will have absolutely no application to the facts of this case. By relying upon sub-clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-Section 33-B, he submitted that the notice is required to be served on the tenant before 1 st January, 1962 under Sub-clause (a) and even in a case where the application under Section 88-C is pending as on 1st January, 1962, notice is to be served within three months of receiving such Certificate.
According to Mr. Anturkar, therefore, Section 33-B is applicable only in two contingencies namely the landlord must have received the Certificate before 1st January, 1962 or the application of the landlord for grant of such Certificate must be pending as on 1st January, 1962. He submitted that in the present case, the application itself was filed some time in the year 1971 and was numbered as Tenancy Case No.10 of 1971 and, therefore, provisions of Section 33-B had absolutely no application to the facts of the present case. He submitted that in any case, the application ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
-8- 201-wp-5332-1998 under Section 33-B is to be filed either before 1st April, 1962 or in the case falling under Sub-Section 3 of Section 33-B, if the application filed by landlord under Section 88-C is undecided and is pending on 1st January, 1962; the application is to be filed within three months of his receiving the Certificate. According to Mr. Anturkar, the case of the present Respondent is not covered by any of the contingencies and, therefore, the application was liable to be dismissed. Mr. Anturkar submitted that though this question was not raised in the Courts below, since it is a pure question of law based on admitted facts, the Petitioners should be permitted to raise such question for the first time in these proceedings.
5 Mr. Anturkar drew my attention to Sub-Section 1 of Section 33-B and contended that the said Sub-Section makes reference only to an application under Sub-Section 3 of Section 33-B. Referring to Sub-Section 4, Mr. Anturkar submitted that Sub-Section 4 applies only in a case where the Landlord is one of the person under disability namely minor, widow or a person having any physical or mental disability. Mr. Anturkar submitted that Rangubai could have herself obtained a Certificate under Section 88- C which was not done. According to Mr. Anturkar, since Rangubai was not Certificated landlady, the present case is not governed either by sub-
Section 3 or by Sub-Section 4 of Section 33-B and, hence, Section 33-B has absolutely no application to the entire facts of this case.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 ::: -9- 201-wp-5332-1998
SUBMISSIONS OF RESPONDENT
6 Mr. Karandikar, Advocate for the Respondent advanced
following submissions:-
(i) In the year 1948, neither Section 88-C nor Section 33-A to 33-C
were on the statute book. In 1956, Sections 88, 88-A, 88-B, 88-C and 88- D were substituted by Section 48-A of the Bombay Act No.13 of 1956 and, the concept of Certificated landlord was brought in the statute book for the first time. He pointed out that till Section 36 of Maharashtra Act No.9 of 1961 amended Section 88-C, the said Section 88-C began with the words "nothing in Sections 32 to 32-R". He pointed out that by Maharashtra Act No. 9 of 1961, the words in Section 88-C namely "Save and otherwise provided by sections 33-A, 33-B and 33-C, nothing in Sections" were substituted. He pointed out that by the said Maharashtra Act No.9 of 1961-Chapter II-A containing Sections 33-A to 33-C was also added.
(ii) He invited my attention to Section 82 which is the rule making power and pointed out that by Bombay Act No.38 of 1957 Sub-
Section (p)(b) was added to Section 82 and the State Government was given power to make rules regarding the period within which and the form in which an application under Section 88-C shall be made and the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 10 - 201-wp-5332-1998 form of Certificate to be issued under that Section. He submitted that in exercise of that power, Rule 53 was inserted in the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules, 1956 by notification dated 13th November, 1957.
He pointed out that Rule 53 initially provided that an application for a Certificate under Section 88-C(2) had to be made in Form XXIV on or before the 31st day of March, 1958. He pointed out that subsequently Rule 53 was amended and the date of making application was extended from 31st March,1958 to 30th September, 1961 on 14th January, 1961.
However, prior to that date, by Government Order dated 18th September, 1958, a proviso was added to Rule 53 making an exception in case of Certificated landlords under disability and the persons claiming through them.
(iii) He pointed out that Section 88-C does not prescribe any time limit for making an application as originally enacted. However, by Act No.38 of 1957 Sub-Section 2 of Section 88-C was substituted which was in consonance with addition of Rule 53 of the Rules. He submitted that form of application under Section 88-C was prescribed vide Form No.24 and period for making an application for a landlord who is not under disability was prescribed till 30th September, 1961.
(iv) He pointed out that Rule 53 (1) proviso (B) gives time of six months to the successor in interest of widow to make an application under ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 11 - 201-wp-5332-1998 Section 88-C. He submitted that Rangubai died on 21st April, 1971 and till her death, there was no compulsion to make application under Section 88-C. He submitted that Section 29 creates a remedy and once the Respondent gets the right of ownership after the death of Rangubai, the right to file an application under Section 29 accrued for the first time. He submitted that Respondent had two options. The first was to file an application within one year from the date of death of Rangubai under Section 31 of the Act in which case, the Respondent could have recovered possession of land to the extent of ½ of the land. The second option was to file an application for getting an exemption Certificate under Section 88-C within the time prescribed by the Rule 53 and, thereafter, after getting the Certificate, file an application under Section 29 within two years of the accrual of the cause of action.
(v) He submitted that Section 33-B is an additional right given to the landlord in addition to his right under Section 31. He submitted that Section 33-B creates a right but does not create a remedy which is created by Section 29. He submitted that Section 33-B refers to Section 29 and in case of Certificated landlord, a lessor period of limitation is provided for filing an application for possession and it commences after compliance with the procedural of service of notice on the tenant and the Mamlatdar before the first day of January, 1962 or within three months of receiving ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 12 - 201-wp-5332-1998 Certificate under Section 88-C. He submitted that since this is an additional right, shorter period of limitation had been prescribed and the application was to be made either before 1st April, 1962 or within three months of actually receiving the Certificate.
(vi) He submitted that Sections 33-B and 33-C will have to be read together. Section 33-C confers right on the tenant of land mentioned under Section 88-C to be deemed to have purchased the land in case where, despite getting the Certificate under Section 88-C, the landlord fails to make an application for possession under Section 29 r/w Section 33-B after serving notice on the excluded tenants. He, however, submitted that in respect of landlord under disability, there was no obligation to apply for a Certificate under Section 88-C and till the landlord attains majority or till the widow dies or till the landlord who is subject to in physical or mental disability condition, the tenant does not get a right to become a deemed purchaser under Section 33-C.
(vii) He submitted that Section 33-B cannot be read in isolation and is to be read with Section 33-C and particularly with Sub-Section 3 thereof. With this, Mr. Karandikar submitted that the third submission of Mr. Anturkar has no substance.
(viii) Regarding the first submission of Mr. Anturkar to the effect that merely Certificate under Section 88-C was not sufficient and that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 13 - 201-wp-5332-1998 S.D.O. and M.R.T. have not recorded any finding of fact on bona fides, Mr. Karandikar submitted that a perusal of the order passed by the Mamlatdar (Tahasildar) will show that even in the cross examination, the effort of the Petitioners was to show that the income of the Respondent was allegedly Rs.5,000/- per month. This efforts have failed in as much as there was no admission given by the Respondent. He invited my attention to the discussion made in paragraph 4(2) and discussion on issue no.6 and submitted that after a complete appreciation of evidence, the Mamlatdar has recorded the finding of fact regarding existence of bona fide requirement which cannot be said to be either contrary to record or perverse. He submitted that the S.D.O. has entirely concurred with the reasoning of the Mamlatdar and, hence, elaborate reasoning was not required. He submitted that the learned Member of the M.R.T has also concurred with the Mamlatdar and, hence, discussed the fact that the question of income of the Respondent had attained finality and, hence, the M.R.T rightly declined to go into the said question.
(ix) Regarding the second submission of Mr. Anturkar, Mr. Karandikar submitted that under Rule 53(1) provisio clause B the Respondent being successor in title of the widow was required to make an application within six months from 21st April, 1971 i.e. the date of death of Rangubai. He submitted that the said application was factually made ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 14 - 201-wp-5332-1998 within six months and there is no dispute in that regard since the application was numbered as Tenancy Case No.10 of 1971. He submitted that the actual Certificate under Section 88-C was issued on 18th December, 1989. Thereafter, a notice of termination of tenancy was sent to the tenant and the Mamlatdar on 17th January, 1990 and one of the tenant in fact, replied to the said notice by reply dated 20th January, 1990 through Advocate A. V. Jadhav.
(x) According to Mr. Karandikar, the period of three months will not apply in case where the Certificate under Section 88-C was received prior to 1st April, 1962 or in case where application under Section 88-C was pending. In other case, like that of the Petitioner, the period of three months will not apply on account of the wording of clause-B and Sub-
Section B of Section 33-B. According to Mr. Karandikar, application is to be filed under Section 29 and since the case of the Respondent is neither covered by Sub-Section 3 nor by Sub-Section 4 of Section 33-B, the application could have been filed within two years after getting the Certificate, though it was factually filed on 16th April, 1990. He invited my attention to the original record pertaining to the Tenancy Application No.33-B/14/1990, and indicating that the same was filed on 16 th April, 1990, and the vakalatnama and the memo of address and list of documents were filed on 17th April, 1990. He invited my attention to the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 15 - 201-wp-5332-1998 7/12 extracts which were obtained on 1st February, 1990 and 3rd June, 1989 respectively, as also the office copies of the registered notice dated 17th January, 1990 and the reply dated 20th January, 1990. He, therefore, submitted that the application was factually filed on 16th April, 1990 which was well within limitation.
(xi) He pointed out that in any case, though the Certificate was issued on 18th December, 1989, the same was stayed on 19th December, 1989 and was factually set aside by the S.D.O. on 20th March, 1990. This order was ultimately set aside on 15th February, 1995 and only on that day, the Certificate was revived. He, therefore, submitted that the application could not have been held to be beyond time inasmuch as the Tahasildar appears to have taken cognizance of the Application under Section 33-B r/w Section 29 after the Judgment of M. L. Dudhat J in Writ Petition Nos.
3020 of 1990 and 3027 of 1990.
SUBMISSIONS IN REJOINDER 7 In Rejoinder, Mr. Anturkar advances following submissions:-
(a) The right to receive Certificate under section 88C and right to get the possession under section 33 B are two distinct rights. It cannot be said that every person, who has get a Certificate under section 88C will necessarily have a right, to get right to make an application, for possession under section 33B.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 16 - 201-wp-5332-1998
(b) There may be some Certificated landlords who have got Certificate
under section 88C but who would not get special right, contemplated by section 33B. In case of such Certificated landlords who are not bestowed, with the special right to get the possession under section 33B, they have to be contended only with non-applicability of the provisions of Section 32 to Section 32R of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act and the landlord-tenant relationship would continue.
(c) Section 29 is merely a procedural section like section 9, of the Civil Procedure Code. Section 29, by itself, does not give any right to landlord, to ask for possession. It only defines, the procedure, and the forum and limitation Heading of section 29, is absolutely clear that it is only "procedure for taking possession".
(d) Further section 29 (2) provides as under :
"Save as otherwise provided in subsection 3A no landlord shall obtain the possession of any land or dwelling house held by the tenant, except under the order of the Mamlatdar. For obtaining such order he shall make an application in the prescribed form and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 17 - 201-wp-5332-1998 within the period of 2 years from the date on which right to obtain the possession of the land or the dwelling house, as the case may be, is deemed to have accrued to him".
(e) Merely because, the landlord, gets the Certificate, it cannot be said that "right to obtain the possession, of the land is accrued, to him".
(f) Section 88 C, has nothing to do with the right to obtain the possession. Right to obtain the possession, is covered only by section 33B and not, by section 88C. Therefore it would not be correct to say that merely because the landlord has got Certificate under section 88C, therefore "right to obtain the possession, of the land" is accrued to landlord under the provision of section 29 (2).
(g) For the purpose of finding out as to whether right to obtain the possession of the land is accrued, to the landlord or not, we have to see the substantive provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, by which, such a right, in certain contingencies have been given, to the landlord.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 18 - 201-wp-5332-1998
(h) These substantive provisions are section 14 and section 31.
(i) It is only in those circumstances, if the statutory requirements of
those sections, are complied with, then only right to obtain the possession, is accrued, to the landlord.
(j) The fallacy, in argument of the learned advocate appearing for the respondent is that he equates the fact, of obtaining the Certificate under section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act as equivalent, to "right to obtain the possession, accruing is in favor of such Certificate landlord".
(k) What he overlooks, is that although the Certificated landlord may get the Certificate under section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, right to obtain the possession, is not available to all Certificated landlords. It is available strictly speaking only to those Certificated landlords, who are covered by the provision of section 33B (1) read with (3) if the provision of section 33B (1) are strictly construed.
(l) Alternatively it is available to the Certificated landlords who are covered by section 33B (3) and section 33B (4).::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 19 - 201-wp-5332-1998
(m) But it is not available to the Certificated landlord who is neither covered by section 33B (3) nor covered by section 33B (4) Such landlord, although "Certificated" has to be contended with only non-applicability of the provision of Section 32 and Section 32R and continuation of the landlord-tenant relationship.
(n) Such a Certificated landlord, who is not covered Section 33B (3) or Section 33B (4) may in case if conditions mentioned in section 14 and section 31 of the BTAL Act, are complied with, can get, right to obtain possession. If he gets such right to obtain the possession, then the provision of section 29 (2) would apply.
(o) It would not be correct to say, that merely by getting Certificate under section 88C, cause of action arises, in favor of such Certificated landlord. By getting Certificate what automatically happens is only that the provisions of Sections 32 to 32R, are put under eclipse and the relationship of landlord and tenant continues.
(p) Such landlord, if he so wants, can terminate a tenancy either under section 14 of section 31 and if he terminates the tenancy, cause of action ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 20 - 201-wp-5332-1998 arises to him and then section 29 (2) would have apply.
(q) Section 29 (2) by itself cannot be interpreted even if read with the provision of section 33B (which is not applicable in the instant case to the respondent landlord) as the source for obtaining, the possession.
(r) Reference, to section 33C, is completely misconceived. Section 33C would apply only in those cases where Section 33B (3) and Section 33B (4) would apply. In those cases where section 33B (3) or Section 33 B(4) if no notice is given at all or if no application is made at all, then the provisions of Section 33 C would apply but in case of such Certificated landlord, to whom neither the provision of subsection (3) nor the provision of subsection (4) of Section 33 B applied, then even provisions of Section 33 C also would not apply.
(s) The most important provision of section 33C (1) (iii).
Perusal, of this provision shows that there is a third category of Certificated landlord who is not covered by the provision of section 33B (3) or the provision of section 33B (4). In case of such Certificated landlords, the provisions of section 33C (1) (iii), provides as under:
"And the landlord, not belonging to any of the category specified ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 21 - 201-wp-5332-1998 in subsection (4) of section 33B has not terminated the tenancy on any of the grounds specified in section 14 or has so terminated tenancy but have not applied to the Mamlatdar on or before 31st March 1962 under section 29, for possession of the land".
(t) The perusal of the aforesaid provisions shows, that if the landlord, does not belong to any of the category specified in subsection (4) of section 33B and if he has not terminated the tenancy on any of the grounds specified in section 14, then the provision of section 33C would apply and such excluded tenant, will be deemed to have become the owner, of the property.
(u) Admittedly in the instant case the respondent belongs, to this "third category" admittedly, he has not terminated the tenancy on any of the grounds specified in section 14. Therefore under the provision of section 33C (1) (iii), the excluded tenant namely the petitioner is deemed to have become the owner of the property.
(v) The provision of section 33C (5) then provides as under:
"The provisions of section 32 to section 32R (both inclusive) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 22 - 201-wp-5332-1998 shall so far as may be applicable, apply to the purchase of flat by an excluded tenant under this section".
(w) It is therefore submitted that the crucial provision, is section 33C (1) (iii) and on admitted facts, it can be seen that the provision of section 33C (1) (iii) would apply in case of the respondent landlord.
(x) It is further alternatively submitted that even if the provision of section 33B (1) and particularly the word "as provided in subsection (3),"
are interpreted so as to "procedure of making an application for possession". It is submitted that interpretation, may not be correct. The procedure, for making an application, for possession is really not contemplated by subsection (3) of section 33B. The procedure for making an application for possession is really contemplated by section 29, of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act. Therefore the words "as provided in subsection (3)" would not mean, "procedure, for making an application for possession". It would mean, that the application, has to be made as provided in subsection 3, means within such time as provided in Sub-Sections 3.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 23 - 201-wp-5332-1998
BRIEF SUMMARY OF RELEVANT STATUTORY PROVISIONS
8 (i) The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948
is an Act to amend the law relating to the Tenancy of the Agricultural Lands. The Act was enacted on account of the fact that due to the disputes between landlords, land holders and tenants, the cultivation of the estate had seriously suffered. The Act was also enacted for the purpose of improving the economic and social conditions of peasants and for ensuring the full and efficient use of land for agricultural purpose and to regulate and impose restrictions on the transfer of agricultural land.
(ii) Section 32 of the said Act provides that on the first day of April, 1957 (hereinafter referred 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, the conditions enacted in the said Section are fulfilled.
Section 31 confers a right on the landlord to terminate tenancy for personal cultivation and non-agricultural purpose. Section 29 provides for procedure of taking possession. Section 32-G empowers the Tribunal (Mamlatdar) to issue notices and determine the price of the land which is required to be paid by the Tenant to the landlord after such tenant becomes a deemed purchaser.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 ::: - 24 - 201-wp-5332-1998
(iii) Section 33-B and Section 33-C reads thus:-
"Section 33-B-Special right of certificated landlord to terminate tenancy for personal cultivation.
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sections 31, 31A, or 31B a certificated landlord may, after giving notice and making an application for possession as provided in sub-section (3), terminate the tenancy of an excluded tenant, if the landlord bona fide requires such land for cultivating it personally.
(2) The notice may be given and an application made by a certificated landlord under sub-section (3), notwithstanding that in respect of the same tenancy an application of the landlord made in accordance with sub- section (2) of section 31 --
(i) is pending before the Mamlatdar or in appeal before the Collector, or in revision before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, on the date of the commencement of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Amendment) Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to in this section as "the commencement date"), or
(ii) has been rejected by any authority before the commencement date.
(3) The notice required to be given under sub-section (1) shall be in writing and shall be served on the tenant --
(a) before the first day of January, 1962 but
(b) if an application under section 88C is undisposed of and pending on that date then within three months of his receiving such certificate.
and a copy of the notice shall, at the same time, be sent to the Mamlatdar. An application for possession of the land shall be made thereafter under section 29 to the Mamlatdar before the 1st day of April, 1962, in the case falling under (a) and within ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 25 - 201-wp-5332-1998 three months of his receiving the certificate in the case falling under (b).
(4) Where the certificated landlord belongs to any of the following categories namely:-
(a) a minor,
(b) a widow,
(c) [***]
(d) a person subject to any physical or mental disability,
then, if he has not given notice and not made an application as required by sub-sections (1) and (3), such notice may be given and such application made-
(A) by the landlord within one year from the date on which he,-
(i) in the case of category (a) attains majority;
(ii) [**)
(iii) in the case of category (d), ceases to be subject to such physical or mental disability; and (B) in the case of a widow, by the successor-in-title within one year from the date on which widow's interest in the land ceases:
Provided that, where a person belonging to any category is a member of a joint family, the provisions of this sub-section shall not apply if any one member of the joint family does not belong to any of the categories mentioned in this sub-section, unless the share on such person in the joint family has been separated by metes and bounds before the 31st day of March, 1958, 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.::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 26 - 201-wp-5332-1998 "Section 33-C- Tenant of lands mentioned in section 88C to be deemed to have purchased land and other incidental provisions:-
(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1) of section 88C, every excluded tenant holding land from a certified landlord shall, except as otherwise provided in sub-section (3), be deemed to have purchased from the landlord, on the first day of April, 1962, free from all encumbrances subsisting thereon on the said day, the land held by him as tenant, if such land is cultivated by him personally, and
(i) the landlord has not given notice of termination of tenancy in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 33B, or
(ii) the landlord has given such notice, but has not made an application thereafter under section 29 for possession as required by the said sub-section (3), or
(iii) the landlord, not belonging to any of the categories specified in sub-section (4) of section 33B, has not terminated the 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, 1962 under section 29 for possession of the land:
Provided that, where the landlord has made such application for possession, the tenant shall, on the date on which the application is finally decided, be deemed to have purchased the land which he is entitled to retain in possession after such decision.
(2) (a) Where a tenant, on account of his eviction from the land, by the landlord before the 1st day of April, 1962, 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 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 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 27 - 201-wp-5332-1998 final order allowing the application is passed.
(b) Where such tenant has not made an application for possession within the period specified in sub-section (1) of section 29 or any 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 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.
(3) Where the certificated landlord, belonging to any of the categories specified in sub-section (4) of section 33B, has not given notice of terminations of the tenancy of an excluded tenant in accordance with sub-section (3) of that section, or has given such notice but has not made an application thereafter under section 29 for possession as required by the said sub-section (3), such excluded tenant shall have the right to purchase the land held by him as tenant within one year from the expiry of the period specified in sub-section (4) of section 33B:
Provided that where the tenancy is terminated and application for possession is made in accordance with the provisions of sub-section (4) of section 33B, the tenant shall, within one year from the date on which such application is finally decided, be entitled to purchase the land which he is entitled to retain in possession after such decision.
(4) An excluded tenant desirous of exercising the right conferred on him under sub-section (3) shall accordingly inform the landlord and the Tribunal in the prescribed manner within the period of one year during which he is entitled to exercise such right under sub-section (3).
(5) The Provisions of sections 32 to 32R (both inclusive) shall, so far as may be applicable, apply to the purchase of land by an excluded tenant under this section.]
(iv) Section 29 of the said Act reads thus:-::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 28 - 201-wp-5332-1998
" (1) A tenant or an agricultural labourer or artisan
entitled to possession of any land or dwelling house under any of the provisions of this Act may apply in writing for such possession to the Mamlatdar. The application shall be made in such form as may be prescribed [and within a period of two years from the date on which the right to obtain possession of the land or dwelling house is deemed to have accrued to the tenant, agricultural labourer or artisan, as the case may be."
(v) Rule 53 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Rules 1956 reads as under:-
"Rule -53:- Form of application under sub-section (2), Section 88-C and the period for making it and the form of certificate,-- (1) An application for a certificate under sub- section (2) of Section 88-C shall be made in Form XXIV [on or before the 30th September, 1961]:
[Provided that where a landlord is-
(a) a minor, or
(b) a widow, or
(c) a person subject to mental or physical disability, or
(d) a serving member of the armed forces.]
[then, if he has not made an application as required by sub-rule (I),] such application may be made----
(A) by the landlord within six months from the date on which--
(i) in the case of category (a) he attains majority;
(ii) in the case of category (c) he ceases to be subject to such mental or physical disability;::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 29 - 201-wp-5332-1998
(iii) in the case of category (d) he ceases to serve in such forces; and (B) in the case of a widow by the successor-in-title within six months from the date on which the widow's interest in the land ceases to exist.] (2) A certificate under sub-section (4) of Section 88-C shall be in Form XXV.]"
CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS 9 In so far as first submission of Mr. Anturkar is concerned, in my opinion, only the Tahasildar and the S.D.O. are the authorities who are expected to record a finding of fact. The Tahasildar has extensively considered the oral and documentary evidence which has been led by the parties and the Tahasildar has recorded an elaborate finding of fact holding that the Respondent has proved the bona fide requirement as contemplated by Section 33-B. A perusal of the Judgment of the Tahasildar shows that the finding of fact is duly supported by the oral and documentary evidence on record and that the Tahasildar has made an appropriate assessment of the evidence. It appears from the record that while bona fide requirement of the Respondent was sought to be challenged, the thrust of the challenge was on the allegations that the Respondent was allegedly earning Rs.5,000/- per month. The Petitioners were, however, unable to prove the said allegations. In that context, the Judgment of the learned Member of M.R.T will have to be considered. As ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 30 - 201-wp-5332-1998 stated above, the Tahasildar has recorded an elaborate finding of fact. It is no doubt true that the learned S.D.O. has not recorded an independent finding of fact. But since the learned S.D.O. was confirming the Judgment of the Tahasildar, a general agreement with the finding recorded by the Tahasildar would meet the requirement of law. In so far the Judgment of M.R.T. is concerned, the M.R.T. is really not supposed to record any finding of fact and normally the finding of fact recorded by the Mamlatdar and the S.D.O. are binding on the M.R.T. unless the same are shows to be perverse. The learned Member of M.R.T. has nevertheless appears to have independently discussed the question of bona fide requirement in the context of submissions which appear to have been made regarding the income of the Respondent. It is, therefore, difficult to accept the first submission of Mr. Anturkar that the Respondent has not been able to prove his bona fide requirement .
10 This takes me to second submission of Mr. Anturkar.
According to Mr. Anturkar, the application had to be filed within three months of the date of delivery of the Certificate under Section 88-C and, according to him, the same was filed beyond three months and was, therefore, not maintainable. It is also submitted by Mr. Anturkar that the finding of fact recorded by the authorities below to the effect that the application was actually filed on 16th April, 1990 was not correct and that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 31 - 201-wp-5332-1998 such an application was in fact, filed some time in the year 1995. It is necessary to deal with this submission of Mr. Anturkar first, since it relates to factual controversy. I am not inclined to accept the contention of Mr. Anturkar for more than one reasons. In the first place, the authorities have recorded finding of fact that the application had been filed on 16 th April, 1990. There is absolutely no perversity in the said finding.
However, to satisfy my own conscience, I have carefully checked the entire original record of the application filed by the Respondent before the Tahasildar. The original record clearly shows that the application had been filed on 16th April, 1990 and an endorsement to that effect has been made in the left margin of the application probably by the Tahasildar. Apart from this, the documents on record clearly shows that on 17th April, 1990, the Advocate for the Respondent herein who was applicant before the Tahasildar had filed Vakalatnama, memo of address, list of documents including 7/12 extracts and the court fees affixed to this documents clearly shows that those documents were filed on 17th April, 1990. It is thus clear that the application was in fact filed on 16th April, 1990.
11 This takes me to the case whether the application was barred by limitation. In my opinion, the same was not barred by limitation for the various following reasons:-
(a) the Certificate was issued on 18th December, 1989. Within ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 32 - 201-wp-5332-1998 one month thereafter, notice was issued on 17th January, 1990. In fact, one of the tenant replied the said notice through Advocate on 20 th January, 1990. In the mean time, in the two Appeals which were filed by the Petitioners, the Certificate was stayed on 19th December, 1989 itself and ultimately, the Certificate was set aside on 20th March, 1990. As noted above, being unaware about this order, the Respondent filed an application on 16th April, 1990. That litigation was carried to this Court and ultimately on 15th February, 1995, M. L. Dudhat J. set aside the order of S.D.O. which was passed on 20th March, 1990. The Certificate issued on 18th December, 1989 was thus stayed on the very next day i.e. 19 th December, 1989 and on account of said stay, the time will not really begin to run.
(b) Apart from the aforesaid reasons, I am inclined to accept the submission of Mr. Karandikar that Section 33-B merely creates right and does not by itself provide for a remedy. While dealing with the third submission of Mr. Anturkar, this point will be more elaborately considered.
12 The third submission of Mr. Anturkar is the most substantial and at the first blush, same appears to be quite attractive and convincing.
However, on a deeper scrutiny and consideration of the provisions of Section 88-C, 29, 31, 33-A to 33-C 82(p)(b) and Rule 53 of the BT & AL Rules, 1956; the conclusion is inevitable that the submission of Mr. ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 33 - 201-wp-5332-1998 Anturkar cannot be accepted.
13 Mr. Karandikar is right in pointing out that Section 88-C as initially enacted did not provide for any time limit for submitting an application for exemption. This time limit was, however, subsequently provided by the Bombay Act No.38 of 1957 whereby the original sub-
section 2 of Section 88-C was substituted. Rule 53 was enacted which initially provided for a lessor time for submission of an application for grant of Certificate and subsequently, the said time was extended by amendment to Rule 53. A proviso was added to Rule 53 and in respect of the landlord having disability like widow, minor, serving member of the armed forces and a person with mental or physical disability an enabling provision was made to permit the minor after attaining majority or the successor in interest of the widow to submit an application within one year. The case of the present Respondent is thus clearly covered by clause-B of the proviso to Rule 53(1). It is an admitted position that the Respondent had applied for Certificate under Section 88-C within one year from 21st April, 1971 when the widow Rangubai died.
14 Mr. Anturkar's submission cannot be accepted on a careful reading of Sub-Sections 3 and 4 of Section 33-B and on a proper analysis of the said Section and the statutory scheme. Chapter-II-A containing Sections 33-A to 33-C was added by Maharashtra Act No.9 of 1961.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::- 34 - 201-wp-5332-1998 Section 33-A defines the terms "Certificated Landlord" and "Excluded Tenant". Sub-Section 1 of Section 33-B provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections 31, 31-A or 33-B, a right is created in favour of the Certificated landlord to seek possession if the landlord bona fide requires such land for cultivation. This right is, however, predicated by two requirements namely requirement of giving notice and making an application for possession. Application for possession is not independently contemplated by Section 33-B but the words "making an application for possession" used in Sub-Section 1 of Section 33-B essentially refer to an application under Section 29 inasmuch as sub-section 3 provides that an application for possession shall be made under Section 29. In my opinion, the words "as provided in sub-section (3)" used in sub-section 1 of Section 33-B, govern not only the manner of giving notice but also refer to making of an application for possession. Mr. Anturkar had urged that as sub-section 1 of Section 33-B uses the words "application for possession as provided in sub-section 3", they must be interpreted to mean an application filed either before the first day of April, 1962 or within three months of receiving Certificate in a case where the application for Certificate under Section 88-C is not disposed off or is pending on 1st January, 1962. If this interpretation sought to be canvassed by Mr. Anturkar is accepted, in my opinion, it will lead to absurd and disastrous ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 35 - 201-wp-5332-1998 results. As stated above, the landlord under disability like widow, minor or person with physical or mental disability may or may not file an application for Certificate under Section 88-C before the prescribed date.
Even if such a landlord under disability does not file such application and does not get Certificate or does not issue notice of termination of tenancy, the provisions of becoming the deemed purchasers under Section 33-C will not be applicable in such case. This aspect is clear from Sub-Section 3 of Section 33-C. Obviously, therefore, such landlords under disability are not covered by Sub-Section 3 of Section 33-B. Said landlords are covered by Sub-Section 4 of Section 33-B. That Sub-Section contemplates the landlord under disability who has itself been granted Certificate under Section 88-C, has not given notice and not made an application as required by Sub-Sections 1 and 3. The legislature has taken care of such a situation by permitting the landlord to issue notice and file an application for possession within one year of attaining majority and the successor in title of a widow- Certificated landlady to issue a notice and file an application within one year from the date on which widow's interest in the land ceases. In the present case, it is an admitted position that Rangubai had never applied for a Certificate and was not a Certificated landlady (landlord).
15 The case of the Respondent will, therefore, neither be covered
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 36 - 201-wp-5332-1998
by Sub-Section 3 nor by Sub-Section 4. However, the right which is given to a Certificated landlord springs to life from Sub-Section 1 of Section 33- B and Sub-Sections 3 and 4 are only in the nature of procedural provisions which lay down certain limitations and restrictions on such a right in case of Certificated landlords covered by Sub-Sections 3 and 4. The legislature in its wisdom has not created any such fetter against the right of a heir of widow either to file application under Section 88-C, which is evident from the Rule 53 which also has a statutory force, nor has the legislature provided for any specific limitation for the heir of widow by prescribing within which time said application can be filed. As discussed above, the application contemplated by Sub-Section 33-B is essentially an application under Section 29. In my opinion Section 33-B will have to be read harmoniously with Sections 29, 33-A, 33-C and Section 88-C and Rule 53.
16 On a harmonious constructions, it is clear that the limitation for filing an application for exercise of the right created by Sub-Section 1 of Section 33-B in so far as the heir of the widow being the landlady under disability is concerned, same is two years as contemplated by Section 29. Such a heir has two options. Under option No.1, he can file an application for possession within one year of the date on which the interest of the widow ceases and such an application would be governed by provisions of Section 31. But, if, such a heir of widow landlady can ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 37 - 201-wp-5332-1998 satisfy the requirement of Section 88-C, there is another option, namely he can file an application under Section 88-C to get the Certificate under that Section and once such Certificate is granted, he can submit an application under Section 29 for possession of the entire land and such an application would be governed not by the provisions of Section 31 but by the provisions of Sections 33-B and 29 of the Act. In the case where an application is governed by Section 31, the extent of the land which can be resumed in favour of the landlord can not exceed more than one half of land held by the tenant. In case however it is governed by Section 33-B, only two conditions are required to be fulfilled namely bona fide requirement and the conditions prescribed by Sub-Section 5 of Section 33- B namely that such landlord can take possession of the land only to the extent thereof as would result in the quantum of land in possession of landlord not being more than the tenants holding which is called as equalization on area for personal cultivation.
17 In the present case, precisely, second option was chosen by the Respondent-Rangubai was a widow as on 1.4.1957 and consequently, the deemed date had been postponed. She died on 21st April, 1971 leaving the Respondent as her sole successor in interest. Within one year of her death, he submitted an application for getting a Certificate under Section 88-C. The extent of land held by him was less than economic holding and ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 38 - 201-wp-5332-1998 his income was less than Rs.1500/- and finally by an order of this Court (R. A. Jahagirdar J), a Certificate was directed to be issued to him. Such a Certificate was in fact issued on 18th December, 1989. Within one month therefrom, he issued notice of termination of tenancy on 17th January, 1990 and filed an application for possession under Section 29 on 16th April, 1990. There is no dispute regarding service of notice and in fact, one of the tenants had sent a reply on 20th January, 1990. The authorities have recorded a finding of fact that total holding of the Respondent including the land in question is less than economic holding. It is not the case of the Petitioners that after the resumption of the tenanted land, the total holding of the Respondent will be more than the total holding of the Petitioners. As I have held above, the law requires only a notice to be served in the manner as provided by Sub-Section 3 of Section 33-B namely service of notice on the tenant and simultaneously furnishing a copy of notice to the Mamlatdar. The words "after giving notice and making an application for possession as provided in sub-section 3" used in Sub-Section 1 of Section 33-B will have to be interpreted to mean after giving notice of termination of tenancy by issuing a written notice, serving it on the tenant and at the same time, sending a copy of the notice to the Mamlatdar. The date of 1st January, 1962 provided in Sub-Section 3 of Section 33- cannot be read in Sub-Section 1 of Section 33-B as argued by ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 39 - 201-wp-5332-1998 Mr. Anturkar. The second requirement of law is making of an application for possession under Section 29. This application can be made within two years from the date on which the right of obtaining possession of the land is deemed to have accrued. The said date is 18th December, 1989 and the application filed on 16th April, 1990 was, therefore, perfectly within limitation.
18 The out come of the aforesaid discussion is that there is no merit even in the third submission of Mr. Anturkar and the application filed on 16th April, 1990 will have to be treated as having been filed well within limitation.
19 In my opinion, right created by Sections 88-C and 33-B is a peculiar right given to the owners of very small pieces of lands and with limited income and this was a conscious inroad in the rights of the tenant to become a deemed purchaser. The tenant can oppose the proceedings under Section 33-B only by raising defences available in that Section namely by contending that the landlord's (it will include the heir of the landlord) requirement is not bona fide or that if an order of eviction is passed, the same would result in creation of a situation where holding of the landlord would be more than the holding of the tenant.
20 It is difficult to accept the submission of Mr. Anturkar that a Certificated Landlord- like the Respondent who is not governed either by ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 40 - 201-wp-5332-1998 Sub-Section 3 or Sub-Section 4 of Section 33-B is not having a remedy of exercising the right conferred by Section 33-B. This argument cannot be accepted as accepting it will completely defeat the legislative intent behind adding the proviso to Rule 53 of the BT & AL Rules, 1956. If the legislature had ever intended that only the original landlord including a landlord under disability can obtain a Certificate under Section 88-C, there was no logic in inserting proviso to Rule 53. The very fact that such proviso was inserted shows the legislative intent and even Sub-Section 1 of Section 33-B does not restrict the right of getting possession on the ground of bona fide requirement only to the landlord as indicated in Sub-
Section 3 or 4 of Section 33-B. If there is a right, there has to be a remedy. If the argument of Mr. Anturkar is accepted, a landlord like the Respondent will not be able to take possession of the tenanted land even though he is holding less than economic holding and his income is less than Rs.1500/- per month. Such a landlord would, therefore, be forced to lose his land in favour of the tenant who would become deemed purchaser by statutory force of Section 33-C. On the other hand, interpretation as suggested by Mr. Karandikar is more harmonious and will uphold and advance the legislature intent rather than defeating the legislative intent. I, therefore, hold that on a purposive interpretation of the statutory provisions, it is not possible to accept the contention of Mr. ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::
- 41 - 201-wp-5332-1998 Anturkar that the Certificated landlord like Respondent do not have any right to take the benefit of the provisions of Section 33-B. 21 The interpretation of the statutory provisions as is sought to be canvassed by Mr. Anturkar would completely nullify the legislative intent behind enacting a beneficial provision for a very small and poor land owner whose interests are sought to be protected vis- a- vis his tenant holding larger area of land than held by the landlord which is precisely the case in hand. In my opinion, therefore, legislative intent can be advanced and sub-served by a harmonious construction and harmonious reading of the provisions of Act and the Rules as mentioned herein above and particularly Rules 53. In my opinion, accepting the submissions of Mr. Anturkar would also amount to adding words to the Statute which is also contrary to settled cannons of interpretation of Statute.
22 As an out come of the aforesaid discussion, the Writ Petition fails and is dismissed with costs. Rule is discharged, with no order as to costs.
(G.S.GODBOLE,J.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:06:36 :::