HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT
GANGABEN W/O DAHYABHAI DHULABHAI
JASODABEN D/O ISHWERBHAI KRIPASHANKER (DECD.) BY HER L.RS.
Click here to view full judgement.
N.H.BHATT, J. -
(1.) THIS is a petition by one citizen claiming to be the tenant in a room in a small piece of land bearing survey no. 1756/4 situated within the limits of Umreth in Kaira district. The room is on the right side of the small field admeasuring 20 gunthas. The petitioner admittedly is the tenant of that agricultural piece of land where agricultural opera- tions are carried on. The proceedings under sec. 32 F and 32G of the Bombay Tenancy Act were started by the Mamlatdar and the A. L. T. Anand and the purchase price was required to be fixed for the land which was with the tenant. In respect of this room and the land on which the room stood a controversy arose. The petitioner said that he was in poss- ession also of the land and the room on it as part and parcel of the field whereas the landladies said otherwise. All the authorities namely the Agricultural Land Tribunal the Deputy Collector and the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal concurrently held that the land with the room thereof was not the subject matter of the lease and it was a separate property in possession of the landladies and therefore the question of fixing the price under secs. 32 and 32G of the Act did not arise. Whether the room with the land on which it stands was the subject matter of lease or not is essentially a question of fact. When all the authorities below have concurrently concluded on appreciation of evidence of both the sides that the room with the land on which it stands was never the subject matter of the lease the question of fixing the purchase price of the room under sec. 32H would not arise. I do not agree with Mr. Majmudars submission that sec. 32H did not specify that the price of the structure put up by the landlord was to be fixed only if it was put up on the land leased to the tenant and therefore the price should be fixed for the structure. A reading of sec. 32H of the Bombay Tenancy Act as a whole makes it clear that after the landlord has put up a structure on the land leased the landlord will be entitled to the price of land as fixed in accordance with law and also the price of the structure. It is in this context that the provision is made under sec. 32H of the Act for fixing the price of the structure put up by the landlord. It proceeds on the assumption that the land on which the structure stands is let out to the tenant. The finding in this case is otherwise. In this view of the matter there is no merit in this application and it is therefore rejected. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.