JUDGMENT
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, J.
1. Heard learned advocates for the parties. Rule. By consent Rule made returnable forthwith.
2. The petitioners challenge the order dated 9.10.2001 passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, rejecting the application for review of its judgment dated 30.10.2000 passed in Revision Application filed on 19.1.1992. By the impugned judgment application for review by the earlier judgment has been rejected. The judgment in the Revision Application was to the effect that the Revision Application filed by the petitioner against the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Pandharpur dated 18.11.1992 was dismissed. Order dated 18.11.1992 of the Sub Divisional Officer was in the appeal filed by the petitioners being Tenancy Appeal No. 99 of 1988 against the order dated 13.6.1988 passed by Tenancy Aval Karkun in Tenancy Case No. 29 of 19/6. The said appeal was dismissed and the order of the Aval Karkun dismissing the application of the petitioners for resumption of land for personal bonafide cultivation was confirmed.
3. The impugned judgments are sought to be challenged on the ground that the claim of the petitioners for resumption of land for personal cultivation has been rejected in contravention of the provisions of Section 23(F)(1)(a) read with 32F(1)(1A) and Section 31 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 hereinafter called as “the said Act”. Reliance is also placed in the decision or the learned single Judge in the matter of Rangrao Nivritti Lad and Ors. v. Vishnu Joti Thorbole and Anr. reported in 2001(1) Mh.L.J. 647. The contention of the petitioners is that the respondent having failed to exercise his right to purchase within the prescribed period under Section 31 read with Section 32(F)(1)(a) of the said Act, the respondent has ceased to be the tenant or deemed purchaser in relation to the suit property and therefore the application filed by the petitioners under Section 338 read with 29 of the said Act, ought to have been allowed in terms of provisions of Section 32F read with Section 32P of the said Act.
4. On the other hand the learned advocate for the Respondent drawing to the provisions of Section 32 and particularly 1st Proviso to Sub-section (1) thereof submitted that in view of the failure on the part of the petitioners to secure favourable order in the proceedings under Section 29 of the said Act, the Respondent has become deemed purchaser of the property and therefore no fault can be found with the impugned orders.
5. There cannot be a dispute about the proposition canvassed by the learned advocate for the petitioners that in case of failure on the part of the tenant to exercise the rights conferred upon him in relation to the purchase of the property, the consequences provided under Section 32P are required to follow and the Authorities in that regard are required to take appropriate action. Indeed, the decision of the learned Single Judge sought to be relied upon is clear in that regard. However, the fact remains that in the case in hand, the petitioners had chosen to take out necessary proceedings under Section 29 of the said Act for obtaining the possession of the suit land from the Respondents. It is also a matter of record that the petitioners have failed to secure favourable relief in the said proceedings. Proviso to Section 32(1) of the said Act reads thus:
“Provided that if an application made by the landlord under Section 29 for obtaining possession of the land has been rejected by the Mamlatdar or by the Collector in appeal or in revision by the (Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal) under the provisions of this Act, the tenant shall be deemed to have purchased the land on the date on which the final order of rejection is passed. The date on which the final order of rejection is passed is hereinafter referred to as “the postponed date.”
6. Apparently in case of failure on the part of the landlord to secure favourable relief in the proceedings under Section 29 the consequences which are bound to follow are that the tenant in possession of the said land is to be deemed to have purchased the land on the date on which the final order of rejection of the application under Section 29 of the said Act is passed. Proviso specifically provides that the date of rejection of Revision Application by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal shall be the date relevant to be considered as the date on which the final order of rejection is passed. This clearly follows from bare reading of the proviso quoted above. Undisputably the Maharashtra Land Revenue Tribunal rejected the claim under Section 29 filed by the petitioners on 30.10.2000. Being so, the Respondent as a result of the said proviso, has become deemed purchaser in relation to the suit land from the said date after the rejection of the revision application filed by the petitioners.
7. It was also sought to be argued on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the provisions contained in Section 32F read with Section 31 and 29 of the said Act, since the valuable right has been assured to the landlord as a consequence of failure on the part of the tenant to exercise his right of purchase within the specified period, merely because the landlord has taken resort to the proceedings under Section 29 of the said Act, it could not be said that the landlord would loose such right. Primarily Section 32F does not speak of any right in favour of the landlord. It only speaks about the requirement of exercise of right by the tenant within specified period. But simultaneously there is a deeming provision regarding acquisition of right in favour of the tenant in the form of proviso to Section 32(1). That being a deeming fiction provided under the Act and the Act being basically beneficial legislation for the tenants, harmonious reading of the provisions of law contained in Sections 29, 31, 32 and 32F would reveal that in a case where the landlord has taken resort to the proceedings under Section 29 of the said Act and on that count the tenant having not opted for exercise of right in terms of Section 32F of the said Act, if ultimately such proceedings under Section 29 are terminated with the denial of any relief in favour of the landlord, the consequence as contemplated under the said proviso to Section 32(1) have to follow or take effect. Being so, the contention sought to be raised in that regard on behalf of the petitioners are to be rejected.
8. In the facts and circumstances disclosed from the above discussion, therefore no fault can be found with the impugned order as it does not disclose any illegality or error apparent on the face of record or any perverse finding, warranting interference by this court in its jurisdiction.
9. In the result therefore, the petition fails and the same is dismissed and the rule is discharged with no orders as to costs.
All concerned to act on the copy of this Order duly authenticated by the Sheristedar of this Court as a true copy.