DAL SINGH Vs. VED PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed this suit for possession of the shop in dispute by way of redemption on payment of the mortgage amount of Rs. 2500/-. The shop was under the tenancy of Ved Parkash respondent No. 1 at that time. The plaintiff claimed his ejectment as well, alleging that he was inducted as a tenant by the mortgagee and his right would come to an end with the redemption of the mortgage. The only dispute in this appeal is regarding the liability of the tenant to hand over the possession on redemption. The plea raised by the tenant was that he was in occupation of the shop as a tenant much prior to the date of mortgage. However, both the Courts below recorded as concurrent finding that he had been inducted as a tenant by the mortgagee. The trial Court held that the tenant was liable to be ejected on redemption. However, the learned Additional District Judge, relying on the stipulation in the mortgage deed that the mortgagee was entitled to lease out the property, held that the tenant was entitled to continue in possession even after redemption. Aggrieved by this portion of the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge, the plaintiff has come up in second appeal.

(2.) THE question involved does not require any detailed discussion because it had been repeatedly held by this Court and recently by J.V. Gupta, J. in Kishan Singh Bedi v. Kharaiti Ram and others, 1986 (1) P.L.R. 272 that in spite of a stipulation in the mortgage deed that the mortgagee was entitled to lease out the property, any lease created by him would not bind the mortgagor on redemption unless the latter had consented to it. The learned Additional District Judge, therefore, erred in law in accepting the plea of the tenant and reversing the judgment of the trial Court.