Landlord’s Obligation to Intimate Tenant of Attaining Majority – Retrospective Application of 1969 Amendment – Tenant’s Right to Purchase Land Extinguished After Statutory Period.

The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that:

The tenant’s proceedings in 1986 were barred by res judicata qua the share of Mukund, but not qua Raosaheb. The 1969 Amendment, which introduced the obligation to intimate the tenant, was prospective and did not apply to landlords who attained majority before 1969. The tenant’s right to purchase the land was extinguished after two years from the landlord attaining majority in 1964.

Major Acts:

1. Constitution of India (COI), Article 227 – Supervisory jurisdiction of High Court over subordinate courts.

2. Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (the Act) – Sections 31, 32, 32F, 32G, 32P – Tenant’s right to purchase tenanted land, landlord’s right to terminate tenancy, and statutory obligations of intimation.

Subjects:

• Tenant’s Right to Purchase – Statutory right under Section 32 of the Act.

• Res Judicata – Bar on fresh proceedings after finality of earlier decision.

• Intimation by Landlord – Obligation under Section 32F(1)(a) after 1969 Amendment.

• Retrospective Application – 1969 Amendment not applicable to landlords who attained majority before 1969.

• Statutory Period – Tenant’s right extinguished after two years from landlord attaining majority.

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation – The petitioners, legal heirs of the original tenant, challenged the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) which set aside the Assistant Collector’s decision allowing the tenant’s right to purchase tenanted land under Section 32G of the Act.

2. Who is Asking the Court and for What Remedy? – The petitioners sought to overturn the MRT’s decision and reinstate the Assistant Collector’s order, which had recognized their right to purchase the land.

3. Reason for Filing the Case – The petitioners claimed that the tenant had initiated proceedings for fixation of purchase price in 1986, which they argued was sufficient compliance with Section 32F(1)(a) of the Act.

4. What Has Already Been Decided Until Now? – The Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT) had rejected the tenant’s application in 1988, holding that the tenant lost the right to purchase the land due to failure to issue notice within two years of the landlord attaining majority. The Assistant Collector reversed this decision in 1991, but the MRT reinstated the ALT’s order in 1997.

Issues:

1. Whether the proceedings initiated by the tenant in 1986 were barred by res judicata? – (Para 8, 9-15)

2. If a landlord attained majority prior to the 1969 Amendment, was it necessary for the landlord to give intimation to the tenant? – (Para 8, 16-31)

3. Whether a tenant who failed to exercise the right to purchase within the statutory period permanently loses the right to purchase the tenanted land? – (Para 8, 23-31)

Submissions/Arguments:

1. Petitioners’ Arguments –

   • The tenant’s initiation of proceedings in 1986 constituted sufficient intimation under Section 32F(1)(a).

   • The Act is a beneficial legislation, and the tenant’s right should not be defeated due to technicalities.

   • Reliance on judgments in Balkrishna @ Vilas Ramji Todakar and Malan Narayan Sakhare to argue that the tenant’s right to purchase should be upheld.

2. Respondents’ Arguments –

   • The tenant’s proceedings in 1986 were barred by res judicata as the earlier proceedings in 1963 were dropped and not challenged.

   • The 1969 Amendment, which introduced the obligation to intimate the tenant, was prospective and did not apply to landlords who attained majority before 1969.

   • The tenant’s right to purchase was extinguished after two years from the landlord attaining majority in 1964.

Ratio:

1. Res Judicata – The tenant’s failure to challenge the dropping of proceedings in 1963 barred fresh proceedings in 1986 qua Mukund’s share. (Para 14)

2. Retrospective Application of 1969 Amendment – The obligation to intimate the tenant under Section 32F(1)(a) was not applicable to landlords who attained majority before 1969. (Para 24-31)

3. Statutory Period for Purchase – The tenant’s right to purchase the land was extinguished after two years from the landlord attaining majority. (Para 23, 31)