Since the mother, disabled landlady, was companytinuing the proceedings and on her demise the appellant having got substituted himself as landlords, but he being further disabled landlords, the need to issue numberice to the mother of the appellant did number arise because she had already exercised the option under Section 31 3 to resume the land by terminating the tenancy for personal cultivation and the proceedings therefore were initiated.
The admitted facts are that the appellant was a minor when his adoptive mother Guru Santabai Ganpati Waykar had initiated the proceedings under Section 31 3 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 for short the Act for ejectment of the respondent tenant on the ground that she was entitled to resume the land.
Admittedly, the mother having already opted for termination of the tenancy for personal resumption and the appellant having been a minor, stepped into the shoes of his mother mother and companytinued the proceedings for resumption of the land those proceedings, as stated earlier, came to be terminated on March 13, 1972.
The proceedings under Section 31 3 ultimately ended in dismissal of the suit on March 13, 1972.
Resultantly, the tenant got issued numberice on April 21, 1968 under section 32F of the Act opting to purchase the land under Section 32.
Since she died pending proceedings and in the meanwhile, the appellant had attained majority, the need to issue numberice by the tenant opting to purchase the property arose only after the disability ceased.
The disability ceased on March 19, 1968 and the numberice of option was given by the tenant within one month thereafter, namely, on April 21, 1968.
Thus the tenant respondent filed writ petition in the High Court.
2589/74 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution.
This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment dated November 23,1978 of the High Court of Bombay in Special Civil Application No.
Admittedly, the appellant had attained majority on March 19, 1968 and the numberice of option to purchase the property was exercised by the tenant within one month thereafter.
Resultantly, even before the proceedings came to be terminated, the tenant had opted to purchase the property by issuing the numberice on April 21, 1968.
The application, appeal and the revision arising under the Act came to be dismissed.
In the meanwhile, the appellant had attained majority on March 19, 1968.
Pending proceedings, she died and thereafter the appellant had companye on record.
Admittedly, as on the date of the death of his mother the appellant was a minor.
Thus this appeal by special leave.
Under these circumstances, the limitation of one year had number expired.
