Goverdhan Lal vs Smt. Santosh Kumari and others

Gokal Chand Mital, J.—The appellant is a tenant of the mortgagee and both the courts below while decreeing the suit for redemption have directed the tenant of the mortgagee to deliver possession to the mortgagor since the tenant''s right was coterminus with the right of the mortgage. This is mortgagee''s tenant''s second appeal.

The learned counsel for the appellant has urged that a reading of the mortgage deed shows that the mortgagee was allowed to induct the tenants and that being so, the tenancy was binding on the mortgagor even after redemption After hearing the learned counsel for the parties on this matter, I am of the view that the matter stands covered against the appellant by the decisions in The All India Film Corporation v. Raja Gyan Nath (1970) 72 P.L.R. 578 (S.C.) and Messrs Rashtaria Bartan Bhandar and others v. Hari Kishan Kasera and others 1966 Cur. L.J. 395, in both these cases, the mortgagee was allowed to induct the tenants and that was construed to mean during the continuance of the mortgage and the tenancy was to come to an end on the redemption. The exception made was that in case the mortgagor specifically agreed that the mortgagee was entitled to induct the tenants beyond the terms of the mortgage, only in those cases the tenancy would have continued inspite of redemption. The learned counsel for the appellant has failed to point out from any other evidence on the record that the mortgagor had allowed the mortgagee to induct the tenants beyond the terms of the mortgage. Accordingly, there is no merit in this contention.

For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.