ORDER
D.G. DESHPANDE, J.
1. Heard Mr. B.R. Patil for the petitioner and Mr. Damle for the respondent. The petitioner is the tenant of Survey No. 425/B-2 situated at village Lonand, Taluka Khandala District Satara. He was the tenant since before 1-4-1957 and it is his case that he became a deemed purchaser under section 32 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 1948 on or from 1-4-1957. He, therefore, applied to the Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T. Phaltan-Khandala and an order under section 32-G of the B.T. & A.L. Act came to be passed after due notice to the landlord on 30-12-1982. It appears from the record that the landlord thereafter filed an appeal before the Sub Divisional Officer raising objection on the ground that the landlord was minor and attained majority on 1-2-1973 and as such the petitioner tenant should have given notice to the landlord to purchase the land under section 32-F(1)(a), but since the tenant has failed to give any such notice, the order of the Additional Tahsildar was liable to be set aside.
2. The appeal of the landlord was allowed and when the tenant – petitioner filed a revision before Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, the same was also dismissed. It is, therefore, clear that both the Sub Divisional Officer Phaltan and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune have accepted the contention of the landlord that it was obligatory on the tenant – petitioner to give a notice under section 32-F(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act within two years of the landlord attains majority.
3. It has also been held by the Sub Divisional Officer and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that the order of the Additional Tahsildar dated 30-12-1982 was illegal and improper because the landlord was minor at that time and the right of the tenant to purchase the land was postponed till the landlord attains majority.
4. It was contended by the Counsel for the petitioner who challenged the orders of the Sub Divisional Officer and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal that the interpretation of section 32-F(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act put forth by these courts is totally wrong because as per the record and admitted facts the tenant was cultivating and in possession of the suit land since before 1-4-1957 and on that day i.e. the tiller’s day the land was owned by Smt. Dwarkabai Dhundiraj Deo and Moreshwar Dhundiraj Deo jointly. He pointed out that both the landlords executed a gift deed in favour of the present respondent on 18-12-1958 and if at all the respondent became an owner of the suit land it was by virtue of the gift deed dated 18-12-1958 and since on the tiller’s day i.e. on 1-4-1957 the land was not owned by the present respondent and the original landlords Smt. Dwarkabai Deo and Moreshwar Deo were alive, section 32-F(1)(a) could not be pressed into service for denying the claim of the tenant.
5. I find considerable force in this submission made by the Counsel for the petitioner, because by virtue of section 32 of the Tenancy Act every tenant who was tenant on 1-4-1957 had become a deemed purchaser. Admittedly, on 1-4-1957 both the original landlords were alive and they were the landlords on record. The present respondent was not the landlord on 1-4-1957 and he became landlord subsequently on 18th December 1958. The gift deed of the landlord does not, therefore, affect the right of the deemed tenant.
6. The Additional Tahsildar has rightly considered the rights of the petitioner – tenant and the respondent as on 1-4-1957 and allowed the application of the petitioner – tenant under section 32-G of the Tenancy Act. Any transfer of land subsequent to 1-4-1957 by the original landlord can not be and would not affect the right of the tenant vis-a-vis the original landlord i.e. the landlord as on 1-4-1957. The reasoning, therefore, given by the Sub Divisional Officer, Phaltan and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, are not at all justified and they are contrary to the Tenancy Act. Consequently, both the orders are liable to be set aside. Hence I pass the following order:-
ORDER
7. The petition is allowed.
8. Rule made absolute.
9. The order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Phaltan dated 1-8-1984 and the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune dated 16-4-1985 are quashed and order of Additional Tahsildar and A.L.T., Phaltan dated 30-12-1982 under section 32-G of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 in favour of the petitioner – tenant is maintained.
10. No order as to costs.
11. Petition allowed.
