MALAM SINGH Vs. SUNDAR LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting question is raised in this Revision Petition as to what should be the basis for evaluating a suit for the purpose of deciding pecuniary jurisdiction of the court to entertain it in a case, where a suit for eviction against he occupant of the property is filed by a person who is alienee of the property from mortgagee and the person in occupation is tenant, inducted by the mortgagee, whether the suit is to be valued as rent eviction suit or as a suit for possession against mortgagee simplicitor, is the question?

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner was inducted as a tenant of the shop situated in Udaipur by one Dalchand Parmar. THE said shop was mortgaged with Dalchand Parmar by the present plaintiff- respondent Sunderlal. Sunderlal redeemed the mortgage and thereafter filed the present suit for evicting Malam Singh, defendant from the suit shop. He alleged in his plaint that since the defendant was inducted as a tenant by the mortgagee, said tenancy does not survive after redemption of mortgage because a tenant inducted by a mortgagee does not become ipso facto tenant of the mortgagor as well, and, therefore, the defendant is also not entitled to protection of the Rent Control Laws. In the alternative, the plaintiff has also claimed relief on the basis of tenancy. For the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee, the plaintiff valued his suit as a rent ejectment suit and paid the court-fee accordingly.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the order of the trial court and placed reliance on Smt. Gauri and Ors. v. Smt. Brijkanwar Devi (supra ).