(1.) THIS case was referred to a Full Bench by my Lord, the Chief Justice, in pursuance of my referring order dated March 16, 1967. The reference was necessitated because of the following observations of Dua J. in Dr. Gian Singh karam Singh v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1964 Punj 846:
(2.) THE facts of the present case may now be stated: Ram Chander, defendant No. 3, was the owner of the shop in dispute. This shop is situate in Sohana district gurgaon. It was under the tenancy of Jagan Nath, defendant No. 2. Ram Chander mortgaged it to Hira Lal, defendant No. 1, with possession. Later on, Ram Chander sold the equity of redemption to Mittar Sain on the 21st of June, 1961. On the 14th of June, 1962, Mittar Sain filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage against hira Lal. Bom Jagan Nath and Ram Chander were impleaded in this suit. The stand taken up by Jagan Nath was that Mittar Sain was only entitled to symbolical possession of the premises on redemption. He was not entitled to their actual possession as they were under his tenancy; and in view of the Urban Rent restriction Act, he could only be evicted by recourse to its provisions. The trial court found that Jagan Nath was not the tenant of Ram Chander and that he was merely the tenant of the mortgagee. Therefore, on redemption of the mortgage, his tenancy came to an end. On appeal preferred by Jagan Nath, the lower appellate Court held that he was the tenant of Ram Chander; but by reason of his having executed a rent note in favour of the mortgagee, Hira Lal, Jagan Nath had relinquished his tenancy under Ram Chander and was a tenant of the mortgagee. On redemption of the mortgage, his tenancy came to an end. Against this decision, the present second appeal has been preferred.
(3.) THE short question, that requires determination in this appeal, is, whether jagan Nath was the tenant of the mortgagor, Ram Chander; and after the mortgage of the shop, he having attorned to the mortgagee and having executed a rent note in his favour, he ceased to be the tenant of Bam Chander and became the tenant of the mortgagee?