Sale of land extinguishes the bona fide requirement for personal cultivation under Section 33B.

In 1958, one Mr. Sadashiv Datar ("Datar") was granted a certificate under Section 88C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 ("the Act") as a landlord with holdings below economic size

Following the Supreme Court’s confirmation of this certificate in 1985, Datar initiated proceedings under Section 33B of the Act in 1990 to terminate tenancy for bona fide personal cultivation

Datar died in 1991, followed by his sisters/heirs

In 2002, the offspring of the sisters applied to continue Datar’s 1990 proceedings, but the application remained pending

In 2017, the current Petitioners filed new Section 33B proceedings, which were rejected by the Tahsildar on the ground that the right to terminate tenancy for personal cultivation abated upon Datar’s death

The Collector reversed this, but the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal ("MRT") subsequently set aside the Collector’s order in revision, holding against the Petitioners

Crucially, the Petitioners sold their entire interest in the subject property to third parties in 2013 and 2017

1. Whether the right to terminate tenancy for personal cultivation under Section 33B of the Act abates upon the death of the original landlord or can be inherited by heirs.

2. Whether the Petitioners could maintain a claim for "bona fide personal cultivation" after selling their right, title, and interest in the subject land to third parties.

Section 88C provides an exemption for small landlords from certain tenancy provisions

Section 33B enables such a landlord to terminate tenancy provided they demonstrate a "bona fide requirement for personal cultivation"

The Act establishes a specific timeframe (three months from certification) for initiating such termination

Under the principles of writ jurisdiction, a petitioner must maintain the foundational requirement of the statutory right—here, the intent to personally cultivate—throughout the proceedings

The Court found it unnecessary to decide the abstract question of whether the right under Section 33B is generally inheritable because the Petitioners’ actions rendered the claim moot

The core of Section 33B is the landlord’s bona fide need for personal cultivation

The Court observed that the Petitioners sold the subject land on an "as-is-where-is" basis to third parties in 2013 and 2017

By divesting themselves of the property, the "foundational ingredient" of personal cultivation "evaporated"

Even if the right were inheritable, the Petitioners would still need to demonstrate their own personal requirement to cultivate, which became impossible upon the sale of the land

Furthermore, the Court noted that the proceedings were actually being conducted by a third-party transferee acting as a power of attorney holder, rather than the heirs themselves

The Court held that since the Petitioners had unequivocally sold the land, the basis for seeking possession for personal cultivation under Section 33B of the Act had come to an end

Consequently, no case was made out for the Court to exercise its discretionary writ jurisdiction to interfere with the impugned order

All petitions were disposed of without interference