Featured image for Supreme Court Judgment dated 12-02-2019 in case of petitioner name Bayaji Sambhu Mali @ Borate (D vs Nazir Mohammed Balal Zari Thro
| |

Tenant’s Right to Purchase Land: Supreme Court Rules on Bombay Tenancy Act

The Supreme Court of India recently delivered an important judgment in the case of Bayaji Sambhu Mali @ Borate (D) Through LRs vs. Nazir Mohammed Balal Zari Through GPA Holder & Ors.. This case revolved around the right of a tenant to purchase land under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, particularly concerning whether a deemed purchaser is required to issue a notice under Section 32F(1A) of the Act.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose when the appellant, Bayaji Sambhu Mali, who was a tenant, claimed that he had acquired ownership rights over the land under Section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy Act, which deems tenants to have purchased the land they cultivate on the “Tillers’ Day,” i.e., April 1, 1957. However, the respondent, who was the landlord, contended that since he was a minor on that date, the purchase was not automatic and required the tenant to give notice under Section 32F.

The case had gone through multiple rounds of litigation before the Mamlatdar, the Appellate Authority, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, and the High Court before reaching the Supreme Court.

Key Issues Before the Supreme Court

  • Whether the appellant tenant had acquired ownership of the land automatically under Section 32, or if Section 32F applied, requiring him to give a notice to purchase.
  • Whether the rejection of the landlord’s application to recover possession of the land under Section 29 resulted in an automatic transfer of ownership to the tenant.
  • Whether the High Court was correct in dismissing the tenant’s claim based on non-compliance with Section 32F(1A).

Petitioner’s (Tenant’s) Arguments

  • The tenant argued that the landlord had applied for possession under Section 29, but the application was rejected at all levels, including the Tribunal.
  • As per the first proviso to Section 32(1), if a landlord’s application for possession is rejected, the tenant is deemed to have purchased the land on the date of the final order of rejection.
  • Since the landlord had already litigated for possession and lost, there was no further requirement for the tenant to give a notice under Section 32F(1A).
  • The tenant had continued possession of the land and had satisfied all conditions to be deemed an owner.

Respondent’s (Landlord’s) Arguments

  • The landlord contended that he was a minor on April 1, 1957, and therefore, the automatic purchase under Section 32 did not apply.
  • According to Section 32F, when a landlord is a minor, the tenant is required to give an express notice of intention to purchase the land within one year of the landlord attaining majority.
  • The tenant had failed to comply with this requirement and had never given such a notice.
  • The rejection of the landlord’s possession application did not automatically transfer ownership to the tenant because the case fell under Section 32F, not Section 32.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court carefully examined the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948. The Court made key observations:

“When an application under Section 29 for possession is rejected, the tenant is deemed to have purchased the land on the date of the final order of rejection. This provision applies irrespective of whether the landlord was a minor at the time of Tillers’ Day.”

“The deemed purchase provision under Section 32 read with the first proviso does not require compliance with Section 32F. If a landlord’s attempt to recover possession fails, ownership is transferred automatically.”

“The High Court failed to consider the impact of the rejection of the landlord’s application under Section 29. The tenant was wrongly held responsible for non-compliance with Section 32F(1A), which did not apply in this case.”

Key Findings of the Supreme Court

  • The Supreme Court ruled that the tenant had lawfully acquired ownership of the land under Section 32.
  • The rejection of the landlord’s application under Section 29 meant that the land was deemed to be purchased by the tenant without any further requirement to issue notice under Section 32F.
  • The High Court’s ruling was set aside, and the tenant’s ownership claim was upheld.
  • The Supreme Court restored the Collector’s order in favor of the tenant.

Impact of the Judgment

This ruling has significant implications for land tenancy laws and tenant rights in India:

  • It clarifies that tenants who continue possession of the land and successfully defend against a landlord’s possession claim automatically become owners under Section 32.
  • It eliminates the requirement of issuing a separate notice under Section 32F in cases where the landlord’s attempt to take possession has been rejected.
  • It strengthens the legal protections for tenants under tenancy laws and prevents landlords from delaying ownership transfer through repeated legal challenges.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Bayaji Sambhu Mali @ Borate (D) Through LRs vs. Nazir Mohammed Balal Zari reaffirms the principles of tenant ownership under the Bombay Tenancy Act. The ruling clarifies that a tenant’s right to purchase land is automatic when a landlord’s application for possession is rejected, and compliance with Section 32F is not required in such cases. This verdict serves as a significant precedent for tenancy disputes and provides greater legal certainty for tenants in Maharashtra.


Petitioner Name: Bayaji Sambhu Mali @ Borate (D) Through LRs.
Respondent Name: Nazir Mohammed Balal Zari Through GPA Holder & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice K.M. Joseph, Justice Ashok Bhushan.
Place Of Incident: Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 12-02-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Bayaji Sambhu Mali @ vs Nazir Mohammed Balal Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 12-02-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Succession and Wills
See all petitions in Judgment by K.M. Joseph
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments February 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category

Similar Posts