JUDGMENT - DESHPANDE D.B., J.: - The short question for ray consideration is whether the tenants application dated 22-6-1977 for the fixation of price of the disputed land under section 50 read with section 48 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands(Vidarbha Region) Act(hereinafter referred to as Tenancy Act) is barred by limitation. 2. It is common ground that in respect of disputed land, the tenant and the landlord created a tenancy on 7-4-1970. Section 50 of the Tenancy Act gave a right to such a tenant to purchase such land within one year from the commencement of the tenancy. The tenant, therefore, on 12-5-1970 served the landlord with a notice asking the landlord to sell the land to him for certain price.. It appears that the landlord did not sell the land to him. Hence on 22-6-1971 the tenant filed an application before the Agricultural Lands Tribunal for fixing price of the land and for selling it to him. 3. The application was inter alia opposed by the landlord on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The learned member of Agricultural Lands Tribunal upheld this objection of limitation summarily dismissed this application as barred by limitation. This decision was confirmed by the learned Sub-Divisional Officer and also by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. Being aggrieved by these decisions, the tenant has come to this Court by way of a writ petition. 4. There is no dispute whatsoever about the facts. The tenancy was created on 7-4-1970. Notice was given on 12-5-1970 by the tenant to the landlord asking the landlord to sell the land to him. The application was filed on 22-6-1971. 5. This takes me to the relevant portion of section 50 of the Tenancy Act. It runs as follows :- “Where a tenancy is created by a landlord after the date specified in sub-section(1) of section 49-A, every tenant holding land under such tenancy and cultivating it personally shall be entitled to purchase within one year from the commencement of tenancy, so much of such land as he may be entitled to purchase under section 41 and the provisions of sections 41 to 44 both inclusive, shall mutatis mutandis apply to such purchase.” This is a right that has come to the tenant by virtue of this section that the tenant shall be entitled to purchase within one year from the commencement of the tenancy. Mr. Mr. M. S. Deshpande appearing for the landlord urged that it was not sufficient for the tenant merely to ask the landlord to sell land to him but it was incumbent upon the tenant to apply within one year from the commencement of the tenancy. We cannot import words and insert them in a section if they are not provided in the Statute by the Legislature itself. If the Legislature wanted to lay down the period of limitation for making application to concerned tenancy Court, for fixing the price the Legislature would have made a provision to that effect. It has not made any such specific provision that the application must be made within one year from the commencement of the tenancy. 6. Mr. Palshikar appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to section 43 of the Tenancy Act. As already pointed out the provisions of sections 41 to 44 both inclusive mutatis mutandis apply to such purchase. In this back ground, Mr. Palshikar placed reliance upon the provisions of sections 43(1), (a) and 43(2) of the Tenancy Act. Section 43(1), (a) runs as follows:- “A tenant who desires to exercise the right conferred by section 41 shall make an offer to the landlord stating the price at which he is pre- pared to purchase the land, such price not exceeding twelve times the rent payable by him and the depreciated value “ We are not much concerned with the other provisions of this sub-section. Mr. Palshikar laid emphasis on the point that if the tenant wanted to purchase land he has to exercise right by making an offer to the landlord stating the price at which he is prepared to purchase the land. Thus, according to Mr. Palshikar, what was incumbent upon the tenant was to make an offer to the landlord within one year for the purchase of the land. According to Mr. Palshikar, it was not incumbent upon the tenant to apply within one year from the commencement of the tenancy. Then Mr. Thus, according to Mr. Palshikar, what was incumbent upon the tenant was to make an offer to the landlord within one year for the purchase of the land. According to Mr. Palshikar, it was not incumbent upon the tenant to apply within one year from the commencement of the tenancy. Then Mr. Palshikar invited my attention to sub-section(2) of section 43 of the Terfancy Act, which runs as follows :- “If the landlord refuses or fails to accept the offer and to execute the sale deed within three months from the date of offer, the tenant may apply to the Tribunal for the determination of the reasonable price of the land.” It is, therefore, quite clear from this sub-section(2) that if the landlord fails to execute sale-deed within three months om the date of offer by the tenant, the tenant is at liberty to apply to the Tribunal. If we take this provision into consideration, there is nothing to hold that the tenant must make application to the Tribunal within one year from the commencement of the tenancy. All that the tenant has to do is to exercise his right to purchase within one year and this he has admittedly done on 12-5-70 by issuing a notice to the landlord to sell land to him. 7. In the alternative, it was contended by Mr. Palshikar that the tenant was bound to wait for a period of three months from the date of offer and the offer was to be made at any time within one year. So according to Mr. Palshikar this period of three months must be excluded while computing the period of one year from the commencement of tenancy. The provision of section 43 sub-section(2) clearly lays down that the tenant has to compulsorily wait for a period of three months from the date of the offer and hence this period has got to be excluded from the period of limitation if at all it is to be assumed that the tenant must make application within one year from the date of commencement of tenancy. It is not disputed before me and it cannot be disputed that if this period of three months is excluded, the application filed by the tenant is in time and is within limitation. It is not disputed before me and it cannot be disputed that if this period of three months is excluded, the application filed by the tenant is in time and is within limitation. 3 I am, therefore, satisfied that the decision of all the Courts below in this respect is not correct and all the Courts were wrong in dismissing the application as barred by limitation. I find that the application is within limitation and hence orders of the Courts below are set aside and the application is held to be within limitation and the matter is remanded to the trial Court for further disposal according to law. In the circumstance of this case, there will be no order as to costs. Orders set aside. -----