PARSINI DEVI Vs. DES RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question of law involved in this appeal is whether a tenant of a mortgagee can continue as a tenant even after redemption of a mortgage or till he is evicted in accordance with the provision of the Rent Act?. The plaintiffs are the heirs of Midu Mal s/o Hira Mal, who was the owner of the property in dispute. Midu Mal died on 22.4.1969 but during his life time, he mortgaged the suit property with Lila Devi w/o Des Raj for a sum of Rs. 4000/- by executing a registered mortgage deed. The defendants are the legal heirs of Lila Devi (mortgagee), who refused to return the possession of the property in dispute on receipt of the mortgage money, therefore, the present suit has been filed.

(2.) Defendants have admitted the mortgage. It was pleaded that at the time of mortgage, the possession was not delivered to Lila Devi as Des Raj/defendant No. 1 was already in possession as a tenant thus, according to them, defendant No. 1 being the tenant of mortgagor cannot be ejected otherwise in due course of law. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-

(3.) In order to prove the tenancy of defendant No. 1, reliance has been placed upon Ex. D2, D3 and D4. Defendant no. 1 has alleged that the property in dispute was earlier mortgaged on 18.7.1957 by Midu Mal and Lachhman Dass in favour of Pushpa Devi w/o Ram Sukhdas Pabi, Advocate, and Dhanpat Mal to the extent of 1/2 share and his son Mohan Lal, Advocate to the extent of 1/2 share. On 17.7.1958, Mohan Lal mortgagee inducted Des Raj/defendant No. 1 as a tenant and received a lumpsum amount of rent for the period 18.7.1958 to 17.7.1959 vide receipt dated 17.7.1958 (Ex. D2) and for the period 18.7.1959 to 17.7.1960 vide receipt dated 18.7.1959 (Ex. D3). Thereafter, the property in dispute was redeemed by Midu Mal and defendant No. 1 paid rent to him for the period 18.7.1960 to 18.1.1961 vide receipt dated 18.7.1960 (Ex. D4). It is also the case of the defendants that Lila Devi inducted Des Raj as a tenant vide rent deed dated 27.3.1961 (Ex. D5) while she was possessing the land in dispute as a mortgagee. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 31.8.1984 disbelieving the receipt Ex. D4, which is the only evidence brought on record by the defendants to prove their tenancy under Midu Mal. However, the appeal filed by defendant No. 1 has been allowed vide judgment and decree dated 1.2.1986 and it was ordered that the plaintiff would be entitled to redeem the mortgaged property but defendant No. 1 would not to be dispossessed. The learned lower Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that receipt Ex. D4 has been executed by the plaintiff and in that regard relied upon the experts evidence. The defendant examined Dewan K.S. Puri (DW8), who had opined that signatures of Midu Mal on the rent receipt and the mortgage deed are the same.