Nanavati, J. - (1.) In this appeal, the appellant, who was a tenant of Shevantibai, is questioning the order passed by the Bombay High Court dismissing his Writ Petition, wherein he had questioned the legality of the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal confirming the order passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Karvir Division, Kolhapur in T.N.C. Appeal No. 192/79.
(2.) As landlady - Shevantibai was a widow, the deemed date of statutory purchase by the appellant - tenant was postponed. It is not in dispute that his right to purchase the land was for that reason governed by the provisions of Section 32-F of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1947. Shevantibai died on 8-12-1965. The appellant thereafter on 15-6-1968 gave an intimation to the heirs of Shevantibai that he was interested in purchasing the land under Section 32-F of the Act. On 9-7-1968, the legal representatives of Shevantibai applied under Section 32-P of the Act for a declaration that as the tenant had not complied with the requirements of Section 32-F the sale has become ineffective and therefore the possession of land may be restored to them as their holding was less than the ceiling area. The Tehsildar granted that application. Aggrieved by that order, the appellant filed an appeal to the Sub-Divisional Officer who allowed it and remanded the case for deciding it under Section 32-G of the Act. Therefore, the heirs of Shevantibai filed a Revision Petition before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal and contended that since the tenant had failed to exercise his right under Section 32-F within the stipulated period, the purchase had become ineffective and, therefore, the Sub-Divisional Officer was in error in allowing the appeal and sending the matter back to the Tehsildar for deciding the same under Section 32-G. The Tribunal accepted this contention and allowed the Revision Application and restored the order passed by the Tehsildar. The High Court in the Writ Petition filed by the appellant confirmed the order passed by the Tribunal.
(3.) Even if we agree with the contention raised on behalf of the appellant that in spite of the earlier decision of the High Court, it was open to the appellant to contend that he was a tenant and had right to purchase the land under Section 32-F of the Act, it is difficult to appreciate how the impugned order passed by the High Court is wrong. Section 32-F provides that in the case where the landlord is a widow, the tenants shall have right to purchase such land under Section 32 within one year from the expiry of the period during which such landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under Section 31. The landlady died on 8-12-1965. Her successors-in-interest could have filed an application for termination of tenancy within one year from 8-12-1965 as her interest in the land ceased to exist from that date. Therefore, the tenant ought to have exercised his right under Section 32-F before 8-12-1966. Admittedly, the appellant did not comply with this requirement of Section 32-F. The intimation contemplated by Section 32-F(1)(a) was given by him long after one year had passed. It was given for the first time on 15-6-1968. It was after his right to purchase the land had come to an end.;