R.F. Nariman, J. - (1.) This case has been referred to a Three Judge Bench by a detailed judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported as Vasant Ganpat Padave v. Anant Mahadev Sawant, 2019 2 SCC 788. The relevant facts that are necessary for determination of the controversy before us are set out in paragraphs 3 to 5 of the referral order as follows: "3. One Balwant Sawant was landlord of Survey No. 92/2, corresponding to new Survey No. 31 Hissa No. 2/10, admeasuring about 0.01.3 H.R. at Village Padavewadi, Taluka & District Ratnagiri. Balwant Sawant died on 10-5- 1950 leaving behind Smt Indirabai Balwant Sawant, his widow as his legal heir and representative. Smt Indirabai Balwant Sawant, widow became the owner of the said property. Her name was mutated in the revenue records. The Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 was amended by Act 15 of 1957. Section 32 as amended provided that on 1-4-1957 (Tillers' Day), every tenant shall be deemed to have purchased from the landlord free from all encumbrances the land held by him as a tenant. The predecessor of the appellants were tenants prior to 1956- 1957 i.e. prior to 1-4-1957. The proceedings for declaring the appellants as purchaser under Section 32-G were initiated during the lifetime of the landlady, Smt Indirabai Balwant Sawant but the mutation Entry No. 1341 recorded that since landlady Indirabai Balwant Sawant is a widow, the proceedings as contemplated under Section 32-G are suspended. On 12-5-1975, Smt Indirabai Balwant Sawant executed last will and testament in favour of Anant Mahadev Sawant, Respondent 1. Smt Indirabai Balwant Sawant died on 7-5-1999. The name of Respondent 1 was mutated in the revenue records on 29-2-2000, with regard to which no notice was issued to the appellants, hence they were not aware of either the death of Indirabai or mutation in favour of Respondent 1. 4. In the year 2008, when the appellants came to know that the landlady has died and in her place, name of Respondent 1 has been mutated, they filed an application on 5-9-2008 before Respondent 2 - Additional Tahsildar & A.L.T. Ratnagiri, Maharashtra for fixing the purchase price under Section 32-G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1948 Act"). Respondent 1 filed reply and opposed the said application. Respondent 2 allowed the application of the appellants by order dated 9-9-2011. Respondent 2 held that predecessors of the appellants were tenants prior to 1956- 1957. Proceedings under Section 32-G for declaring the appellants as purchasers were initiated during the lifetime of the landlady and the same were suspended on 8-1-1964 during the lifetime of the landlady being a widow. Respondent 2 fixed the purchase price and directed the appellants to deposit the same to enable issue of sale certificate in favour of the appellants. Aggrieved against the order dated 9 -9- 2011, Respondent 1 filed an appeal under Section 74 of the 1948 Act before Respondent 3, Sub-Divisional Officer, Ratnagiri, Maharashtra. Respondent 3 allowed the appeal vide its order dated 8-1-2013. Respondent 3 held that the appellant ought to have issued notice under Section 32-F within the time as prescribed and no notice having been issued within the time as prescribed, the appellants have lost right of purchase. 5. The appellants, aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, filed a revision application before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. There were other revisions filed by several other tenants who were aggrieved by the order of the Sub-Divisional Officer. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal by a common order dated 20-4-2013 dismissed the revisions and confirmed the order of the Sub- Divisional Officer. The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal held that applicants were under legal obligation to give intimation expressing their desire to purchase within time stipulated under Section 32-F, which having not been given, no right of purchase is available to applicants. Aggrieved against the judgment of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, writ petitions were filed by the appellants and several other similarly situated tenants. All the writ petitions were dismissed by common judgment dated 1-8-2014 [Arjun Hari Kamble v. Anant Mahadev Sawant,2014 SCCOnLineBom 4931] of the High Court, against which judgment, these appeals have been filed."
(2.) After setting out various provisions of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), as amended, and after referring to various judgments of this Court dealing, in particular, with Section 32-F of the Act, the Division Bench then stated: "30. The ratio of the abovenoted judgments can be restated in the following words: 30.1. For a landlord suffering from a disability on the Tillers' Day i.e. 1-4-1957, the deemed purchase shall be suspended. 30.2. Landlord suffering from a disability has a right under Section 31(3) of the Act to give notice of termination of tenancy and file an application for possession. 30.3. Under Section 31(3), a minor, within one year from the date on which he attains majority; a successor-in-title of a widow within one year from the date on which her interest in the land ceases to exist; and landlord within one year from the date on which his/her mental or physical disability ceases to exist, can also give an application for termination of tenancy and possession. 30.4. Under Section 32-F, tenant has right to purchase where landlord was minor or a widow or a person subject to mental or physical disability within one year from the expiry of the period during which such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under Section 31. 30.5. The tenant, in event, does not exercise his right of purchase within the period as prescribed under Section 32- F(1)(a), his/her right to purchase shall be lost. 31. In the present case, it is undisputed fact that the landlady died on 7-5-1999 and within one year thereafter her successor-in-title did not exercise his right under Section 31(3) and thereafter within one year tenant has not given any intimation for purchase as contemplated by Section 32- F. The question to be answered is as to whether in the above facts, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Revenue Tribunal as well as the High Court were right in their conclusion that right of the tenant i.e. the appellant has lost, he having not issued any intimation for purchase of the land within one year from expiry of the period as contemplated under Section 31(3). 32. The ratio of this Court as noticed above, especially in the judgments of this Court in Appa Narsappa Magdum [Appa Narsappa Magdum v. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar, 1999 4 SCC 443] , Sudam Ganpat Kutwal [Sudam Ganpat Kutwal v. Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar, 2006 7 SCC 200] and Tukaram Maruti Chavan [Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti Narayan Chavan, 2008 9 SCC 358] , clearly supports the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellants having not exercised their right to purchase under Section 32-F(1) read with Section 32-F(1-A) within the time prescribed, the right of purchase of the tenant is lost. But there is one aspect of the matter which needs to be noted and has not been considered in the above judgments rendered by two-Judge Benches of this Court which we shall notice hereinafter." The Division Bench then laid emphasis upon the Statement of Objects and Reasons to the 1969 Amendment of the 1948 Act and opined: "37. Amendment in Section 32-F(1)(a) added by Act 49 of 1969 expressly covered a case of landlord who was minor and has attained majority. Intimation by a minor landlord who has attained majority has been made a statutory obligation of the landlord so that tenant may exercise his right of purchase. The other two categories which are a widow or a person subject to mental or physical disability have not been expressly included in the amendment incorporated by Act 49 of 1969. The Statement of Objects and Reasons of the amendment given in 1969 as well as the express provisions of such amendment are for the purposes and object to enable the tenant to exercise right of purchase. When for one category of landlord i.e. minor it is mandated that he will intimate the tenant after he attained the majority so that tenant may be enabled to exercise the right of purchase, we are of the view that the same object has to be read in two other categories of landlord that is the successor-in-title of a widow and a landlord whose mental or physical disability has been ceased. When the legislative object is to facilitate a tenant of a disabled landlord after cessation of disability to exercise right of purchase, the same benefit needs to be extended to other two categories of disabled landlord. We do not find any distinction in three categories of disabled landlords nor tenant of a landlord who was a minor can be put on any higher footing as compared to other landlords suffering from the above two disabilities. The question may be asked that amendment only expressly included the landlord who has attained majority to send intimation and the legislature consciously did not include the other two categories of landlord i.e. successor-in-interest of a widow and landlord of a mental and physical disability ceases to exist. The Objects and Reasons and express amendment made by Act 49 of 1969 were with a view to enable the tenant to exercise his right of purchase. The said legislative intendment is to be extended to all tenants of landlords who were suffering from disability on the Tillers' Day, whether successor-in-title of a widow or a landlord whose mental or physical disability ceases. All the three categories of tenants should be extended the same benefit and provision should be interpreted so that all tenants may be enabled to exercise their right of purchase effectively and in real sense. 38. As in the present case, the tenant's case is that he was unaware of the death of the landlady since for the last several years she was living in Bombay, the date of knowledge of death of the landlady cannot be said to be an irrelevant factor and unless the tenant is aware of the death of landlady or in case of landlord suffering from physical or mental disability, how he will exercise his right of purchase, is an important question. The 1948 Act and the amendments made by the 1969 Act were with intent to facilitate tenants to exercise their right. The amendments by Act 15 of 1957 was agrarian reform making tillers of the soil the owners of the land which was done to achieve the object of making all tillers of the soil as owners of the land. While interpreting the provisions of Section 32-F(1-A) as well as Section 31(3), the purpose and object of the 1948 Act, amendments made therein from time to time cannot be lost sight off. 39. When Section 32-F of the 1948 Act gives right to purchase to a tenant whose landlord was suffering from a disability on Tillers' Day, the exercise of right to purchase by such tenant has to be interpreted in a manner so as to make the exercise of right meaningful and effective. The abovesaid right cannot be defeated on the ground that it was not exercised within the period prescribed when the tenant is unaware as to when the period has begun. 40. The period prescribed for exercising the right to purchase is not a period of limitation but a reasonable period prescribed for the exercise of a right. The knowledge of cessation of disability of landlord by the tenant can only be commencement of the period prescribed. 41. When a statute gives a right to a tenant, statute needs to be interpreted in a manner so as to make the right workable, effective and meaningful. Such right cannot be defeated unless it is proved that tenant, even after knowing that disability has ceased, does not exercise his right within the period prescribed. 42. A two-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in Appa Narsappa Magdum [Appa Narsappa Magdum v. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar, 1999 4 SCC 443] has expressly rejected the submission that tenant had no intimation of the death of landlady. Further judgments of this Court in Sudam Ganpat Kutwal [Sudam Ganpat Kutwal v. Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar, 2006 7 SCC 200] and Tukaram Maruti Chavan [Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti Narayan Chavan, 2008 9 SCC 358] also laid down the same ratio. The judgments in the above three cases were rendered by the two-Judge Benches in which cases the amendments made by Act 49 of 1969 were neither raised nor considered. We, thus, are of the view that the ratio laid down in the above cases needs to be reconsidered and explained in view of the object and purpose for which amendments were made in Section 32-F(1)(a) by Act 49 of 1969 as noticed above. We, thus, refer to the following questions for consideration of a larger Bench: 42.1. (1) Whether the object and purpose of amendment made in Section 32- F(1)(a) by Act 49 of 1969 is also relevant and applicable for exercise of right to purchase by a tenant of landlord who was widow or suffering from mental and physical disability on Tillers' Day? 42.2. (2) Whether the successor-in-interest of a widow is also obliged to send an intimation to the tenant of cessation of interest of the widow to enable the tenant to exercise his right of purchase. 42.3. (3) In the event the answer to above Question (1) or (2) is in the affirmative, whether decision of this Court in Appa Narsappa Magdum [Appa Narsappa Magdum v. Akubai Ganapati Nimbalkar, 1999 4 SCC 443] , Sudam Ganpat Kutwal [Sudam Ganpat Kutwal v. Shevantabai Tukaram Gulumkar, 2006 7 SCC 200] and Tukaram Maruti Chavan [Tukaram Maruti Chavan v. Maruti Narayan Chavan, 2008 9 SCC 358] needs reconsideration and explanation. 43. Let the papers be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for constituting a larger Bench. In the meantime, we direct that the parties shall maintain the status quo."
(3.) We have heard Shri Aniruddha Joshi, learned Advocate for the Appellant and Shri Ajit S. Bhasme, learned Senior Advocate for the Respondent. Shri Joshi painstakingly took us through various provisions of the 1948 Act and was at pains to point out that it was a social welfare legislation enacted in furtherance of an Agrarian Reform Programme and was, therefore, covered by Article 31A of the Constitution of India. He laid great emphasis, in particular, upon the Amendment Acts of 1956 and 1969. By the first mentioned Amendment Act, the statutory scheme was to divest an absentee landlord of his title and vest title directly in the cultivating tenant of agricultural land. The landlord was given only a limited right to ask for resumption of his land provided certain very stringent conditions were met, provided that such application was made on or before Tillers' Day i.e. 1st April, 1957. He argued that in the case of three categories of persons, namely, widows, minors and persons suffering from a disability, the right of the cultivating tenant to become owner was only postponed, and Section 32-F must be read narrowly so as not to interfere with the statutory right of purchase of the cultivating tenant. The 1969 Amendment made this clear, but was limited only to one of the three categories, namely, minors. According to him, therefore, to sub- serve the object sought to be achieved by the 1956 Amendment, it is clear that whether a cultivating tenant is a tenant under a minor on the one hand, or a widow or a person with a disability on the other, should make no difference to the fact that once the landlord's disability ceases, the tenant must first know that such disability has ceased before he can meaningfully exercise the statutory right given to him within the period prescribed. According to him, all the Division Bench Judgments of this Court, which have held that such knowledge is immaterial, are wrong in law and need to be overruled. He stated that a manifestly absurd result would be reached if we were to so construe Section 32-F of the Act. According to him, the one year within which the cultivating tenant may exercise his statutory right of purchase is only after the period of disability has ceased, in that, for example, the widow has died and one year has elapsed from the date of her death within which she has not exercised any right to resume the land. If the Division Bench Judgments of this Court are correct, then since the period of one year from this date has also elapsed for the reason that the tenant had no knowledge of the widow's death and, therefore, was not able to apply in time, the result would be that such lands would then have to be distributed under Section 32-P, under which the first preference is given again to the absentee landlord who may then be given back this land to the extent and in the manner provided by the Act. This would turn the Object of the 1956 Amendment on its head, as an absentee landlord would, after not availing of any right to resumption, get back agricultural land from a cultivating tenant only because the cultivating tenant had no knowledge of a fact which was exclusively within the landlord's domain. According to him, therefore, applying the golden rule of interpretation, if the literal reading of Section 32-F were to lead to this absurd result, it is possible for us as interpreters of the law to add or subtract words which would remove this absurdity, which can only be the counting of the one year period, so far as the cultivating tenant is concerned, from the date of knowledge of the death of the widow. He cited a number of judgments in support of this proposition. He also argued that in any event, if Section 32-F were to be construed literally, it would violate Article 14 as it would discriminate between cultivating tenants who are similarly situate, namely, tenants whose statutory right to become owners has been postponed on account of the landlord's disability. Whereas in the case of minors, the landlord is bound to intimate the tenant of the date on which such minor attains majority, so that he may exercise his statutory right in a meaningful way, there is no such obligation on a widow's successors to inform the tenant of the death of the widow, resulting in persons who are similarly situate being deprived of their statutory right for no fault of theirs, and contrary to the Object sought to be achieved by the 1956 Amendment.;