YASHPAL Vs. CHATAR BIHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment will also dispose of Regular Second Appeals Nos. 317 of 1976 and 1896 of 1977 as the question involved is common in all three appeals.

(2.) LACHHMI Mal was the original mortgagor. He mortgaged his three shops vide separate mortgage deeds in favour of Devi Parshad. The mortgages were created somewhere in the year 1922. Meanwhile the original mortgagor as well as the mortgagee died. Their predecessors filed a suit for redemption. The plaintiff mortgagors did not implead the tenants in the suits filed by them who were inducted by mortgagee during the subsistence of the mortgages. The suits were ultimately decreed. In execution proceedings, objections were raised on behalf of the tenants that they could not be dispossessed in execution of the decree against mortgage. The said objections were dismissed. The tenants filed separate suit giving rise to these appeals. The only question between the parties before the trial Court was whether the plaintiff tenants were entitled to continue as tenants after redemption or they were liable to be ejected in execution of the decree for redemption.

(3.) THE matter now stands concluded by the judgment of this Court reported in Kishan Singh Bedi v. Kharati Ram and others, 1986(1) P.L.R., 272. It was held therein that even if it is provided in the mortgage deed that the mortgagee may himself induct the tenant, even then the tenant so inducted are liable to be ejected in execution of a decree for possession by way of redemption unless there was an express intention to allow the tenancy beyond the term of the mortgage. There is nothing in the mortgage deed to suggest that there was any such express intention to allow the tenants beyond the term of tenancy. That being so, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the concurrent findings of both the Courts below so as to be interfered with. Consequently, all the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.