ARJAN SINGH, ETC Vs. AMAR NATH, ETC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Admittedly the appellants were inducted as tenants by the mortgagee during subsistence of the mortgage. The short question involved in the appeal was as to whether they were liable to be ejected on redemption or not. Both the Courts below have decreed the suit and negatived the pleas taken by the appellants.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellants contended that since the appellants were inducted as tenants on account of permission granted by the mortgagor, they were entailed to continue as tenants now even after the redemption. In support of his contention he referred to Smt. Rukhamanbai v. Shivram, 1981 AIR(SC) 1881.

(3.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I do not find any merit in this appeal. As regards this Court, the matter stands concluded by my judgment reported as Kishan Singh v. Khraiti Lal,1985 2 RCJ 526. It is not disputed that the mortgagor never authorised the mortgagee to induct the tenant beyond the redemption of the mortgage. That being so, the case is fully covered by the said judgment. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant has no relevance to the facts of the present case. Consequently, the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.