GHAMANDI RAM Vs. SHANKAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE question falling for consideration in the second appeal before us is whether a tenant inducted on the mortgaged property by a mortgagee in possession could invoke the protection of sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter to be referred as the "act". , as against the mortgagor, after the latter had redeemed the mortgage and it has arisen in this way:

(2.) RESPONDENT Shanker Lal had mortgaged his shop situate at Hanumangarh with Dwarkadass by a registered mortgage deed on 14-9-53. In terms of the mortgage Dwarkadass was put in actual possession of the shop. Thereafter he let out the shop to the appellants Ghamandiram & Sohanlal. After some time Shankerlal demanded from Dwarkadass vacant possession of the shop, as he was prepared to pay off the mortgage debt. Dwarka Dass, however, could not do so on the sole ground that the physical possession of the mortgaged shop was not with himself, but with the defendants Ghamandi Ram and Sohanlal. Shankerlal consequently brought the suit against the mortgagee and the tenants in the court of Civil Judge, Hanumangarh, and deposited the mortgage amount in the court. Dwarka Dass, however, did not contest the action, but the present appellants pleaded that the mortgagor was not entitled to evict them on account of the provisions of the Act and they were prepared to attorn to Shanker Lal. The learned Civil Judge held that the appellants were not entitled to the protection of the Act, as with the redemption of the mortgage the rights of the mortgagee came to an end and the appellants who derived title from the mortgagee could not be permitted to continue in possession of the premises. Accordingly, he passed a decree for possession in favour of the mortgagor. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge the appellants went up in appeal to the District Judge, Ganganagar, who dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree of the trial court. This is how the appellants have come to this Court in second appeal.

(3.) IN Hansraj Vs. Gappulal (1), to which one of us was a party, it was held, in construing the provisions of the Act, that it was a remedial legislation and a strictly literal interpretation in the case of remedial legislation would wholly or in part nullify the benefits which the legislature intends to confer on those for whom the legislation is intended. IN that case the landlord determined the tenancy by notice and then filed the suit against the tenant for damages for use and occupation of the premises. It was observed by this Court that a suit for recovery of damages was more or less the same as a suit for recovery of arrears of rent. Reliance was placed in deciding this case on Remon Vs. City of London Real Property Company, Limited (2 ). Hansraj's case was followed in Gyarsilal vs. Chogalal (3), which was a Single Bench case of this Court.