-: 1 :- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1161 OF 2010 Vitthal R. Raut & Others. ..Petitioners. Versus Bhojraj Dajiba Sawant & Ors. ..Respondents. Mr. Rajesh Datar for the Petitioners. Mr. S. G. Karandikar for the respondents. Coram : R. V. MORE, J. Date : March 29, 2010. P. C. : 1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Datar, learned counsel for the Petitioners and Mr. S. G. Karandikar, learned counsel for respondents. 2. The petitioners admittedly were cultivating the suit land belonging to the predecessor-in-title of the respondents on tillers’ day. Smt. Rajayajibai, the predecessor-in-title of the respondents-landlord, was widow and therefore tillers’ day was postponed. There is no dispute that the landlady Smt. Rajayajibai expired on 5th April 1988. The petitioner thereafter on 6th December 1991 filed proceeding under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 [for short, “the said Act”] showing willingness to purchase the suit land. The purchase price was fixed by the ALT and Tehsildar which order was confirmed by the SDO in appeal. The respondent thereafter challenged the order of the ALT and Tehsildar and SDO before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT). By the impugned order the -: 2 :- respondent’s revision was allowed and petitioner’s application for fixing of purchase price under section 32G of the said Act was rejected. 3. Section 32F of the said Act deals with right of the tenant to purchase the land where the landlord is minor, widow or person subject to any mental or physical disability, etc. Under clause (a) of section 32F(1) of the said Act, the tenant is entitled to purchase the suit land under section 32 within one year from the expiry of the period during which the landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy under section 31. 4. Under section 31 of the said Act, the respondents (i.e., successor-in-title of the landlady) were entitled to apply for possession by giving notice within one year from the date on which landlady’‘s interest in the suit land ceased to exist. Admittedly, the respondents have not taken any steps under section 31 of the said Act. 5. Be that as it may, in view of the provisions of section 32F(1A) of the said Act, the petitioners were duty bound to give intimation to the respondent and the Tribunal of their willingness to purchase the suit land within the period of two years from the date on which the landlady’s interest in the suit land ceased to exist. There is no dispute that such notice is not given by the petitioners within the period of two years. However, for the first time in a proceeding under section 32-G, which was initiated in the year 1991 willingness to purchase the suit land was shown. 6. The issue regarding entitlement of the tenant to purchase the land -: 3 :- under section 32F(1)(a) of the said Act was considered by the Apex Court in Appa Narsappa Magdum v/s. Akubai Ganapathi Nimbalkar & Ors. reported in 1999 AIR SCW 1649. The Apex Court held that the period stipulated under section 32F of the said Act cannot be counted from the date of knowledge of the tenant and same is to be counted from the date of death of the landlord. This decision of the Supreme Court is subsequently followed by another bench of the Supreme Court in Tukaram M. Chavan v/s. Maruti Narayan Chavan & Ors. reported in (2008) SCC 358. In the light of these judgments, I find that the petitioners having failed to give intimation within the stipulated period to the respondents are not entitled to purchase the suit land under section 32G of the said Act. Learned Member of the MRT appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a correct finding on the basis of the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court. 7. Mr. Datar, learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the provisions of section 32F(1)(b) of the said Act are meant to protect the interest of tenant who is a minor, or a widow or a person subject to any mental or physical disability, however, by operation of sub-section (1A) of section 32F, the said protection to the category of tenants mentioned above will become redundant. I find substance in the submission. However, in the present case the Petitioner - tenant does not fall in the category of tenants mentioned above. Thus, the submission need not be considered. 8. I find no error in the impugned order so as to enable this Court to -: 4 :- interfere with the impugned order in writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, petition is dismissed. 9. At this stage, Mr. Datar, learned counsel for the petitioners prayed stay to the operation of impugned order for the period of eight weeks. Mr. Karandikar, learned counsel for the respondents has no serious objections for the same. In that view of the matter, the operation of the impugned order is stayed for the period of eight weeks from today. (R.V. MORE, J.)