S.B.DESHMUKH - (1.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties.
(2.) With the assistance of the learned Counsel appearing for the respective parties, I have considered the Judgments of the trial Court and the first appellate Court, as well. SECOND APPEAL No. 24/2010 In relation to Second Appeal No. 24/2010, I am accepting Ground (e) (page 8), to be a ground involving substantial question of law, even though the Counsel appearing for the appellants argues that other grounds and, more specifically, grounds (a) and (b) also involve substantial questions of law. It is made clear that I have accepted only one ground in this appeal i.e. Ground (e), which is reproduced hereinbelow, being the substantial question of law in this appeal: Whether in absence of any findings that the appellant had knowledge about the existing . . 3 SA. 24 of 2010 and ors. tenancy rights of the respondent No. 1, prior to signing agreement for sale with the respondents No. 2 -4, whether the finding that the rights of the respondent No. 1 over the premises as tenant would not be affected and the appellants are bound by the said earlier tenancy rights is vitiated in law, and whether the Appellate Court ought to have seen that the respondent No. 1 did not have any right over the premises purchased by the appellants and his tenancy was not qua the said premises ? SECOND APPEAL No. . 36/2010
(3.) IN this appeal, after hearing the Counsel for the parties, I am accepting question No.5 (page 5) to be a substantial question of law. The said question reads as follows : Was the first appellate Court justified in travelling beyond pleadings and/or jurisdiction to invoke tenancy rights in a suit seeking specific performance of a contract ? SECOND APPEAL NO. 111/2010;