RAMDEV Vs. PRABHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal under sec. 224(2) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) has been filed by the defendants against whom the respondents suit for ejectment has been decreed by the lower appellate court after reversing the decree of the original court which had dismissed the suit.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record as well. Put briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent created a usufructuary mortgage of the land in mortgage, that during the subsistence of the mortgage the appellants were admitted as tenants, the mortgage was eventually redeemed and thereafter the respondent brought this suit for ejectment on the ground that after redemption of the mortgage the appellants were liable to be treated as trespassers. The trial court held that the appellants were lawfully admitted as tenants and as such they could not be held as trespassers. The first appellate court took a different view and has referred to A.I.R., 1956, Supreme Court 305 for holding that after the redemption of the mortgage the appellants who were admitted as tenants by the mortgagees could not be held as tenants.

(3.) The main point involved for determination in the case is as to whether a tenant of agricultural land duly admitted by the mortgagee during the continuance of the mortgage would continue to hold the status of a tenant or not in accordance with the provisions of the Act after the redemption of the mortgage. The lower appellate court has referred to two decisions of the Supreme Court which lay down the law on the subject. It has, however, failed to appreciate the real contents of these decisions. In A.I.R. 1952 Supreme Court 205 Mahavir Gope and others vs. Harbans Narain Singh, their Lordships were pleased to observe as below : - -