Charan Dass vs Om Parkash and others

Prem Chand Jain, J.—The facts of this case may briefly be stated thus :--

Chhaju Ram was the owner of the Tavela in dispute, who mortgaged the same with possession in favour of Dev Parkash under a registered mortgage deed dated 10th January; 1951, for a sum of Rs. 180/-. Subsequently, he sold this Tavela to Om Parkash and Roshan Lal plaintiffs for a sum of Rs. 2400/- through a registered sale-deed dated 23rd December, 1966. Om Parkash and Roshan Lal brought a suit for possession of the Tavela by way of redemption, on payment of the mortgaged amount.

Charan Dass was arrayed as defendant No. 2 as he was in actual occupation of the property in suit as a tenant under the mortgagee He contested the suit on various grounds. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed : -

Whether the plaintiffs have purchased the property in dispute vide sale deed dated 13th December, 1966 ?

Whether the Court has no jurisdiction ?

Whether the defendant No. 2 is a tenant under defendant No. 1 qua the property in dispute ?

Whether Chhaju Singh mortgagor had authorised defendant No. 1 to lease out the property in dispute ?

Whether the creation of tenancy in favour of defendant No. 2 by defendant No. 1 was an act of prudent management, if so, its effect ?

Relief.

On the basis of the evidence on the file, the trial Court passed a preliminary decree for redemption on 13th December, 1971, in favour of the plaintiff-respondents. On appeal, the judgment and decree of the trial Court have been affirmed. Still dissatisfied, Charan Dass has filed the present regular second appeal.

The only point urged before me by Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, is that the appellant being the tenant of the property, could not be dispossessed on the basis of the decree for redemption and that he could only be evicted by filing a petition before the Rent Controller.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I find myself unable to agree with this contention of the learned counsel. It is not disputed that there is a clause in the mortgage deed authorising the mortgagee to lease out the property. In pursuance of this clause, the mortgagee leased out the property in dispute to the appellant. The short question that needs determination is whether on redemption the tenant who was inducted by the mortgagee would also go. It would be wasteful to dilate on this aspect of the matter as this question now stands settled by the judgments of this Court in Messrs Bawa Electric Radio Service v. Smt. Sham Kaur (1972) 74 P.L.R. 999, and Mohan Singh another v. Ramji Dass (1978) 80 P.L.R. 230. In this situation, the findings recorded by the Courts below that the tenant would remain in possession only till the property is redeemed and that the lease could not be granted by the mortgagee beyond the period of mortgage, are affirmed

No other point is urged.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeals fails and is dismissed, but in the circumstances of the case, I make no order as to costs.