Order
Notwithstanding the persuasive arguments advanced before us by Smt J. Wad, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, we are unable to find any error in the reasoning or conclusion of the High Court which has taken the view that the respondent tenant is entitled to the benefit of Section 32-M of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 as amended by Gujarat Act 36 of 1965. This appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed, but, in the circumstances of the case, we direct the parties to bear their respective costs.