Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(2) where the tenancy is inherited by heirs other than the widow of the deceased tenant, such widow shall have a charge for maintenance on the profits of such land."

17.The tenancy right devolves upon such of the heir or heirs who are will- ing to continue the tenancy. It was contended on behalf of the Respondents that the Plaintiff or Laxman could not give any consent when their father died and when the right devolved as they were then minors. The evidence of DW-1 Hansabai-the mother of the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 goes to show that at the time of death of Maruti, Laxman was 12 months old and the Plaintiff Arjun was 4 to 5 years old, while defendant Sarjerao was 20 years old. Naturally neither Arjun nor Laxman had a capacity to assert their rights or to give their consent. Naturally therefore the name of De- fendant No.1 Sarjerao who was then 20 years old and major came to be substituted in place of his father. Maruti died in 1947. If Arjun was 4 to 5 years old in 1945, he could be said to have attained majority in on 1960. Sub-section 4 of Section 32-G contemplates giving of notice to the inter- ested persons and all others. A notice therefore to these two persons i.e. the Plaintiff and Laxman was necessary. It was necessary because the name of Sarjerao was recorded as tenant and in the capacity of manager of joint family. Section 40 merely says that the landlord shall continue the tenancy in favour of those willing. This is, therefore, a question between the landlord and the tenant which can be resolved even by an agreement. In the case at hand, the landlord had no option but to continue the tenancy only in the name of Sarjerao Defendant No.1 as other brothers were mi- nor. To my mind, that did not give right to Sarjerao alone to purchase the property under Section 32-G. The said section says that notice to inter- ested persons is to be given. There is no evidence on record that Laxman and Plaintiff had given any consent nor there is any evidence to show that any notice was given to them when the 32-G proceedings were decided. Thus upon the death of Maruti, the tenancy right devolved upon the Plain - tiff, Defendant No.1 and Laxman who were joint with him. Sahebrao his eldest son had already separated from him after taking his share. Sahe-