Prior rejection under Section 31 does not bar subsequent tenant purchase rights under Sections 33B and 33C.

The Petitioners claimed tenancy rights in the suit lands and initiated Tenancy Case No. 32G/25/2011 before the Tahsildar and Agricultural Lands Tribunal, Kalyan, seeking fixation of the purchase price under Section 32G of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 (“Tenancy Act”).

The Tahsildar allowed the application on 14 February 2014, and the Sub-Divisional Officer dismissed the Respondents’ appeal and confirmed that order on 10 March 2015.

In revision, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal set aside both orders on 8 May 2017, principally holding that an earlier application concerning the tenancy had been rejected on 12 December 1960 and that the Petitioners could not thereafter claim a right to purchase the lands.

Whether the earlier rejection of the landlord’s application on 12 December 1960 barred the Petitioners from asserting purchase rights arising under Sections 33A to 33C, introduced subsequently?

Whether the status and benefits of a “certificated landlord” under Sections 88C and 33A to 33C continue in favour of the landlord’s successors-in-interest?

Whether the extended protection under Section 33B(4) was available where only one of several landlords belonged to a protected category, without establishing the joint-family separation requirements under its proviso?

Whether the Petitioners’ right to purchase had to be considered in light of the Supreme Court’s subsequent ruling in Vasant Ganpat Padave, including the requirement that a successor-in-interest of a widow intimate the tenant regarding cessation of the widow’s interest?

The Court applied Sections 32 to 32R, particularly Section 32G, Section 32F, Sections 33A to 33C, and Section 88C of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

Section 33B(2)(ii) expressly permits recourse to that provision notwithstanding rejection of an earlier application before commencement of the amended scheme.

Section 33B(4) affords an extended period to a minor, widow, or person suffering from physical or mental disability, subject to its joint-family proviso; Section 33C confers purchase rights on an excluded tenant where the certificated landlord fails to validly terminate the tenancy or pursue possession, with Sections 32 to 32R applying to the purchase process.

Under Parvatibai Ramchandra Rokade v. Mahadu Tukaram Varkhede, AIR 1967 Bom 428, the benefit of a Section 88C certificate continues in favour of successors-in-interest.

Vasant Ganpat Padave v. Anant Mahadev Sawant, (2019) 19 SCC 577, held that the successor-in-interest of a widow must intimate the tenant of cessation of the widow’s interest and overruled Appa Narsappa and Tukaram Maruti Chavan to the extent inconsistent with that principle.

The Court held that the 1960 rejection was not an absolute bar because Section 33B(2)(ii) specifically contemplates a prior application having been rejected before commencement of the new statutory scheme.

The earlier order could bind the parties only on matters actually decided at that time; it could not extinguish rights subsequently arising under Sections 33B and 33C.

The Court accepted that successors-in-interest retain the benefit of the original Section 88C certificate, but clarified that such continuation does not eliminate the tenant’s statutory purchase rights or excuse compliance with the conditions governing notice, possession proceedings, and purchase.

The Tribunal had failed to examine whether the landlords’ holding was joint or separately held and whether the requirements of the proviso to Section 33B(4) had been satisfied, particularly since it was alleged that only one of the three landlords belonged to a protected category.

Further, the Tribunal’s reasoning based on Tukaram Maruti Chavan could not stand after the contrary legal position declared in Vasant Ganpat Padave.

In the absence of material showing that the successor-in-interest had duly intimated the Petitioners of cessation of the widow’s interest, the Petitioners’ purchase rights could not be rejected on the assumption that the limitation period had already commenced.

It held that the earlier rejection dated 12 December 1960 did not bar proceedings arising under the subsequently introduced Sections 33A to 33C; that the certificate’s benefit could continue in favour of the Respondents as successors-in-interest, but subject to all statutory conditions; and that the proviso to Section 33B(4) and the rule in Vasant Ganpat Padave had to be properly considered.

The Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal’s order dated 8 May 2017 was quashed and set aside.

The Tahsildar’s order dated 14 February 2014, as confirmed by the Sub-Divisional Officer on 10 March 2015, was restored.

The writ petition was allowed, Rule was made absolute, and there was no order as to costs.