Landlady’s brother is a "family member" under Section 4(1)(a), precluding claim to deemed tenancy.

The dispute concerns agricultural lands in Pune, originally owned by Shankar Kisangir Gosavi.

After Shankar died in 1931 and his son Dattu died in 1934, Shankar’s widow, Parvatibai, became the sole owner.

Parvatibai had two brothers, Kashinath and Gyanba.

In 1945, Parvatibai adopted Gyanba (renamed Raghunath), making him her legal heir.

Kashinath (the other brother) claimed tenancy rights based on his alleged cultivation of the "suit lands" on the tiller’s day (1 April 1957).

In 1993, Kashinath initiated proceedings under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("Tenancy Act").

While the Agricultural Lands Tribunal (ALT) initially fixed a purchase price in 2002, the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) remanded the matter for fresh enquiry.

Upon remand, the ALT (2016), SDO (2016), and Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal (MRT) (2019) concurrently rejected Kashinath’s tenancy claims.

The Petitioners (heirs of Kashinath) challenged these orders before the High Court.

1. Whether a brother of a landlady can be classified as a "member of the owner’s family" under Section 4(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act, thereby excluding him from being a "deemed tenant".

2. Whether the tenancy claim over lands retained by Parvatibai was hit by the special provisions governing widows under Section 32F of the Tenancy Act.

3. Whether there was sufficient evidence of Kashinath's cultivation of the lands as of the tiller's day (1 April 1957).

Section 4(1)(a) of the Tenancy Act provides that a person lawfully cultivating another’s land is "deemed" to be a tenant unless they are a member of the owner’s family, a servant, or a mortgagee.

Section 32F grants special protections to landlords who are widows, minors, or disabled, regarding the statutory purchase of land by tenants.

Principles of Article 227 of the Constitution of India as elucidated in Garment Craft v. Prakash Chand Goel, limiting supervisory jurisdiction to cases of grave dereliction of duty or perversity.

The court reasoned that the relationship between Parvatibai (a widow) and Kashinath (her brother) was the pivotal factor.

Under Section 4(1)(a), family members are excluded from deemed tenancy to prevent relatives from claiming ownership through mere permissive cultivation.

The court held that in the absence of a formal rent agreement or receipts, a brother assisting his widowed sister is presumed to be acting as a family member rather than a tenant.

The court distinguished the precedent Bai Pirojabai v. Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, noting that in the present case, Parvatibai was a widow residing locally, making her brother's cultivation naturally familial.

Regarding Gat Nos. 452 and 495, the court found they were retained by Parvatibai for her livelihood; thus, under Section 32F, the mandatory purchase notice was not served, and Kashinath had no right to purchase widow-owned land.

For the remaining lands, the court found no evidence of Kashinath’s name in the revenue records as of 1957, with his name appearing only much later during 1966-67 consolidation.

It held that Kashinath was a member of the owner's family under Section 4(1)(a) and thus not a deemed tenant.

The protections afforded to a widow under Section 32F barred the tenancy claims for the lands she retained.

The court found no perversity in the lower authorities' findings and declined to interfere under Article 227.

The stay previously granted was extended for eight weeks to allow for an appeal.