MOHD BABA Vs. MUKHTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a defendantâ„¢s first appeal in a Revenue matter. The land in dispute belonged to one Lassi Guru who in his turn had mortgaged it to one Arundatti. During the period when the mortgaged was in force, Arundatti admitted the defendants into cultivating possession of this land. In the meanwhile an Act by name the Restoration of Mortgaged Property Act, 2006, was enacted and brought into force, according to which power was given to the mortgagors to redeem their mortgaged land before the period fixed by the mortgage deed. Lassi Guru, taking advantage of the provisions of the Restitution of Mortgaged Property Act brought a suit and got a decree for redemption of this land. In fact during the pendency of this suit, Arundatti and Lassi Guru entered into a compromise whereby a decree for redemption was passed in favour of Lassi Guru. The defendants Mohd. Baba and others who were in the cultivating possession of this land as tenants of Arundatti, refused to give possession of the land in dispute to the plaintiffs in whose favour a decree for redemption was passed. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that they had acquired the rights of protected tenants in the said land. But in this case the status of a protected tenant could not be claimed by the defendants. Reference may in this connection be made to section 15 -C of the Jammu and Kashmir Tenancy (Amendment) Act in which it has been provided that the provisions of section 15 -A of the Tenancy Act cannot apply to lands mortgaged with possession. Section 15 -A deals with the definition of a protected tenant and also details the reasons on the basis of which a tenant can claim the status of a protected tenant. From this it would follow that if a tenant has been admitted into cultivating possession of some land by a mortgagee landlord, such a tenant cannot claim, the status of a protected tenant. So far as the present plaintiffs are concerned, the defendants became their tenants only last year. No question of their getting rights of a protected tenant, therefore, arises. The defendants are at their best mere tenants at

(2.) THE defendants in this case have allowed the decree to be passed ex -parte against them. Their learned counsel, however, made a submission that some improvements have been effected by the tenants in the land in dispute. This may or may not be a fact, but if the lower court has not started any inquiry into this matter, the defendants need thank themselves only and none else. They should not have allowed the decree to go ex -parte against themselves. But somehow or the, other it appeared to me that the defendants may have made some improvements in the land. Taking into consideration all the factors involved in the case, I order that Rs. 20 may be paid as compensation to the defendant -appellants. This money has been paid to the defendant -appellant Mohd. Baba in open court. The appeal is rejected, but in view of the peculiar circumstances of the case, parties will bear their own costs in this court.