NIVRUTI DNYANU PATIL Vs. SHANKAR KRISHNA BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22nd January, 1991 of 4th Additional District Judge, Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No.181 of 1986, which was preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28th October, 1985 passed by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli in Regular Civil Suit No.428 of 1982.

(2.) The said suit was filed by the original Respondent, Shankar Krishna Bhagat-Patil, for redemption of mortgage and for getting possession of the suit premises. It was his case that he was in need of money and the Appellant offered to pay him the amount of Rs. 1500/-, he executed the mortgage by conditional sale of the suit premises in favour of the Appellant on 24th December, 1973. The mortgage was to be redeemed after the expiry of five years therefrom and the possession was to be taken back by the Respondent. Accordingly, after the expiry of five years, the Respondent demanded the possession and redemption of the mortgage. The Appellant, however, avoided to do so. Hence, the Respondent issued a notice to him on 11th August, 1982, which was served on the Appellant on 12th August, 198 The Appellant failed to comply therewith or even to give reply to the said notice and hence, the suit was filed.

(3.) This suit was resisted by the Appellant admitting the execution of the mortgage deed and also showing his readiness for redemption of the said mortgage. However, a specific contention was raised by the Appellant in the written statement at Exhibit-14 that he has been in possession of the suit premises as a tenant since 1968 at the rent of Rs. 10/- per month. He was running grocery shop therein. During subsistence of the said tenancy, the mortgage deed was executed and his possession was continued as a mortgagee. Now after the redemption of the mortgage, his tenancy stands revived and hence, he is entitled to remain in possession of the suit premises as a tenant. Therefore, though the decree of redemption of the mortgage can be passed, the Respondent cannot be entitled for possession of the suit premises. The Appellant had also contended inter-alia that on the basis of the consent deed executed by the Respondent on 25th October, 1974, he has carried out repairs of the said premises by incurring the expenses of Rs. 2985/- and he is entitled to get that amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.