Therefore, by virtue of the dismissal of the appellants application under Section 31 1 under the provisions of Section 31 1 the respondent became a deemed purchaser of the said land on the postponed date 29.5.1957, the latter being the date on which the application of the appellant was dismissed.
He has claimed that in a partition effected in the year 1956 in the joint family of which he was a member an area admeasuring 1 acre 19 gunthas out of Revision Survey No.
1948, the appellant filed an application under Section 31 1 read with Section 29 of the said Act for possession on the ground that he bona fide required the land for personal cultivation.
This application was ultimately dismissed by the Mamlatdar on 29.5.1957 on the ground that under Section 31 B, there is a prohibition against termination of tenancy if such termination would result in companytravention of the provisions of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.
On 20.10.1964, by Maharashtra Act 39 of 1964, Chapter III AA was added in the said Act to companyfer certain benefits on the members and ex members of the armed forces.
The respondent tenant thereupon moved the High Court by way of a writ petition which has been allowed by the impugned judgment order dated 8.10.1980.
He served, on 11.4.1972, a numberice terminating tenancy of the respondent under Section 43 1B 2 .
These proceedings, however, were dropped by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal on 31.5.1961 on the ground that the appellant was then a minor and the tenant companyld number purchase the land.
Thereafter proceedings lunder Section 31 G were taken for determination of purchase price.
8 of village Kudnoor in Gadhinglaj Taluka came to his share.
The tenant did number take any steps to challenge the decision of the Tribunal dated 31.5.1961.
In the proceedings which took place thereafter, his application was allowed by the Sub Divisional Officer on 31.3.1976.
An appeal from this order to the Additional Commissioner was dismissed on 25.4.1976.
On companying into force of the Bombay Tenancy Agricultural Lands Act.
This land is agricultural land of which the original respondent was a tenant at the material time.
Hence, the present appeal.
The appellant is the landlord.
