PURSHOTTAM Vs. RAMCHARANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is by the defendant against whom a decree for his ejectment has been passed The mortgagee whose tenant he claimed to be has also filed an appeal (being F. A. 15 of 1963) against the decree for redemption But his appeal is confined only to the costs of the suit awarded against him. However, as both the appeals wise out of the same suit and judgment, the disposal of the instant appeal shall govern the disposal of both the appeals.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondents are the purchasers of equity of redemption from the heirs and legal representatives of the original mortgagor. Shyamlal Kachar, who had mortgaged the properly consisting of 2 1/2 shops, with Harprashad, appellant in the connected appeal, on four different mortgage deeds, and the total amount of the mortgage money was Rs. 10,500. The mortgages carried interest in lieu of rent. The original mortgagor, Shyamlal, failed to pay the rent, with the result that harprashad, mortgagee, brought a civil suit, No. 84 of 1953, and in the execution of its decree, recovered possession of the mortgaged property. Harprashad. mortgagee, inducted two tenants, on monthly tenancy of Rs. 10 and Rs. 17 respectively, and Purshottam, appellant in the instant appeal, is one of them. The plaintiff-respondents filed suit for redemption of the property after giving proper notice, and defendant No. 1. Harprashad, appellant, resisted it on the ground that no tender of the mortgage money was ever made to him and though the plaintiff-respondents are entitled to redemption on payment of the mortgage money and interest, they were not entitled to khas possession, Purshottam, defendant No. 2, and one Rajaram, defendant averred that they could not be evicted being the tenants of the mortgagee, except on any of the grounds provided in the Madhya pradesh Accommodation Control Act. (hereinafter called the Act ).

(3.) THE teamed Additional District Judge framed as many as six issues in the suit and came to the conclusion that though the plaintiff-respondents had failed to prove the tender of the mortgage amount of Rs. 10,500 on the dates as alleged in the plaint, yet they were entitled to a mortgage decree for redemption of the mortgaged property on the payment of the mortgage money and interest found due. He also held that the tenants of the mortgagee are liable to be ejected since their tenancies stood terminated with the redemption of the mortgage, and they could not take advantage of the Act. Accordingly, he passed a preliminary decree.