KARTAR SINGH Vs. HARBANS SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Sarin states that the mortgagor had given the authority to the mortgagee to lease out the premises and in view of that authority, the premises were leased out to the appellant. In the circumstances, Mr. Sarin vehemently argues that the tenancy does not come to an end after the redemption of the property. In support of his contention, he has referred to a Full Bench decision of this Court. in Jagan Nath Piare Lal V. Mittar Sain and others, 1970 AIR(P&H) 104. On the other hand, Mr. Puri learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the proposition laid down in Jagan Nath Piare Lal's case is not applicable to the facts of the present case. He further argued that in case the mortgagor does not specifically state that the mortgagee had the right to give the property on lease beyond the term of mortgage, the appellant could not avail of the ratio of the Full Bench decision. In support of his contention, he has further referred to Sochamal Parasram V. Ratan Lal and others, 1972 AIR(SC) 637 All India Films Corporation V. Raja Gyan Naths, 1970 72 PunLR 578 and Sham Dass and others V. Hari Ram and others, 1976 RCJ 11, I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and find force in the contention of Mr. Puri. The matter is now well settled by the Full Bench in Jagan Nath Piare Lal's case and Supreme Court in the above mentioned cases. In the circumstances I do not find any substance in the contention of Mr. Sarin learned counsel for the appellant. The appeal is consequently dismissed. Mr. Puri has given an assurance that the appellant shall not be ejected from the property in dispute for a period of one month. The assurance will not, however tantamount to any fresh contract between the parties.