RAMA KRISHNA AROLKAR Vs. KUMUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Amrut Kansar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Mr. S.G. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4. The above appeal came to be admitted on 19.04.2007 on the following substantial questions of law.

(2.) WHETHER the Trial Court and the first appellate Court were not bound to take into consideration the provisions of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, 1964 as amended from time to time which is a welfare legislation and there could not be any contract waiving the right of tenancy by the tenant?

(3.) I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and I have also gone through the records. Both the Courts below upon appreciating evidence on record have come to the conclusion that the respondents are the owners of the disputed property. Mr. Kansar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants does not challenge the said findings of ownership in favour of the respondents herein. As such, the question of interfering with such findings of the Courts below would not arise at all.