JUDGMENT :- This is a defendants appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 9-2-1974 by Sri R.P. Pandey, learned Additional Civil Judge, Ghaziabad who allowed Civil Appeal No. 195 of 1973 arising out of suit No. 688 of 1970; plaintiffs claim was decreed with costs throughout. The judgment of learned Munsif dismissing the suit was reversed. 2. Dispute relates to a shop, staircase and Balakhana situate in Khekra town, Pargana-Baghpat. Relief sought was for recovery of possession and mesne profits to the extent of Rs. 320/- for the period from 25-9-1969 to 28-5-1970. Along with costs of the suit, future and pendente lite mesne profits were also claimed at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month. 3. Plaintiff Smt. Chameli who is dead now, was wife of Nem Chand Jain, who purchased the disputed property from appellant for a sum of Rs. 2000/- on 25-9-1969. She could not get possession over the vended property despite demands and service of registered notice on defendant dated 13-4-1970. Hence this suit was filed on 29-5-1970. 4. Defendant contested the claim on the ground that plaintiff is the wife of Nem Chand Jain; Sri Nem Chand was the owner of the shop and Balakhana in dispute; defendant was tenant in the shop on ground floor on annual rent of Rs. 335/- before 7-12-1959. 5. Nem Chand needed money, so he borrowed a sum of Rs. 3300/- from defendant. Nem Chand executed a sale deed on 7-12-1959 in favour of defendant as a security for that loan. The tenancy of defendant over the shop continued; Balakhana also passed in his tenancy from 7-12-1959 and the total rent payable for the entire accommodation was increased to Rs. 396/-. It was further agreed that rent of disputed accommodation shall be adjusted towards the interest of the loan advanced by defendant to Nem Chand. 6. Thus the defendant continued to be tenant of the accommodation in suit and never became owner of vended property. It was after ten years that on the request of husband, of plaintiff, defendant executed a sale deed in favour of his wife for a sum of Rs. 2000/- only. Rs. 1300/- were adjustable towards further rent for four years. So even after the execution of the sale deed by defendant in favour of plaintiff the tenancy of defendant in the shop and Balakhana continued. 2000/- only. Rs. 1300/- were adjustable towards further rent for four years. So even after the execution of the sale deed by defendant in favour of plaintiff the tenancy of defendant in the shop and Balakhana continued. Thus the plaintiff was not entitled to get possession over the disputed shop and Balakhana without terminating the tenancy of defendant over the disputed accommodation. Plaintiff was not entitled to recover any mesne profits. 7. A replication was also filed by plaintiff in which it was conceded that defendant was tenant of Nem Chand before 7-12-1969. It was denied that tenancy subsisted after execution of sale deed in favour of defendant on 7-12-1959. It was averred that defendant became full owner of the shop and Balakhana in dispute and tenancy of defendant in the disputed shop merged with his right of ownership and thus got extinguished by merger. 8. It was further conceded that the property was to be reconveyed to the landlord on receipt of Rs. 3300/- which was the amount paid by Nem Chand to defendant. Nem Chand paid Rs. 3300/- to defendant, although the consideration shown in sale deed dated 25-9-69 was only Rs. 2000/-. 9. Learned trial court found that sale deed dated 7-12-1959 was not a sale out and out but only a mortgage deed. She also found that defendant continued to be tenant of accommodation in dispute even after the execution of the sale deed dated 7-12-1959 and the subsequent sale deed dated 25-9-1969. Thus the plaintiff was not entitled to get possession over the accommodation in suit without terminating the tenancy of defendant in accordance with law. Thus the suit of plaintiff was dismissed with costs. 10. Learned appellate court reversed these findings. He held that the sale deed dated 7-12-1959 was an out and out sale and not mortgage; the tenancy of defendant extinguished on 7-12-1959; it was not revived, on 25-9-1969. In the result the appeal was allowed with costs throughout. Claim of plaintiff for recovery of possession over the disputed shop. Balakhana and for recovery of Rs. 320/- as mesne profits was decreed against the defendant. Mesne profits were further allowed at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month on payment of necessary court fees in execution department. In the result the appeal was allowed with costs throughout. Claim of plaintiff for recovery of possession over the disputed shop. Balakhana and for recovery of Rs. 320/- as mesne profits was decreed against the defendant. Mesne profits were further allowed at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month on payment of necessary court fees in execution department. Defendant was directed to hand over possession to plaintiff over the disputed shop and Balakhana within 15 days from the date of impugned judgment failing which plaintiff was to get decree executed through court. 11. Aggrieved, by this decision defendant has filed this appeal. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Sri K.B.L. Gaur, learned Advocate, for appellant argued before me that under sale deed Ext.4 plaintiff could get a Constructive possession only. Actual possession was not contemplated by the parties, Learned appellate Court was not justified in accepting the case of respondent that although a sum of Rs. 3300/was received, by defendant as sale consideration on 25-9-1969 but defendant mentioned only Rs. 2000/- in the sale deed in order to save the expenses of stamp duty. 13. A careful perusal of record shall go to disclose that Balakhana was not in tenancy of defendant. There is no rentnote etc. to show that defendant ever became a tenant of this Balakhana. Admittedly defendant is in possession of the entire property purchased by him through execution of the sale deed dated 7-12-1959 by Nem Chand in his favour. In his statement Nem Chand, P.W. 1 denied that the tenancy subsisted after the execution of sale deed by him in favour of defendant; he also denied, to have borrowed any loan from defendant. He also denied that defendant became his tenant from 25-9-1969 and a sum of Rs. 1300/- was adjusted towards the demand, of rent as stated by Sri Santosh Kumar, D.W. 1, in his statement. He also denied that the interest of Rs. 3300/was paid in the shape of rent or the rent was enhanced to Rs. 396/- Learned lower appellate Court also disbelieved the statement of Santosh Kumar, D.W.1 on the point that the tenancy revived after execution of sale deed Ext.4 by him in favour of wife of Nem Chand. 14. He also denied that the interest of Rs. 3300/was paid in the shape of rent or the rent was enhanced to Rs. 396/- Learned lower appellate Court also disbelieved the statement of Santosh Kumar, D.W.1 on the point that the tenancy revived after execution of sale deed Ext.4 by him in favour of wife of Nem Chand. 14. Defendant also filed receipt Ext.A-2 dated 26-7-1959 showing advance payment of rent by him up to July, 1960 which was adjusted in the sale consideration shown in sale deed Ext.A-3 dated 5-12-1959. 15. A careful perusal of both these sale deeds viz. Exts.A-3 and Ex.4 shall go to disclose that there is absolutely no mention in any sale deed that relationship of landlord and tenant subsisted amongst the parties so far as the disputed accommodation was concerned after the execution of these documents. It is correct that plaintiff conceded about an agreement to reconvey this property entered into between the defendant and Nem Chand on 7-12-1959. That agreement is not on record. According to the defendant it was in possession of landlord while according to Nem Chand it had been torn off by defendant. Learned appellate Court correctly found that in view of Section 58, clause (c) of T.P. Act that transaction could not be deemed to be a mortgage as the condition to reconvey the property was not embodied in Ext.A-3. He was justified in holding that Ext.A-3 was an absolute sale and not mortgage. 16. There is nothing on record to falsify the statement of Nem Chand that after the execution of the sale deed the tenancy extinguished and was never revived. The statement of defendant that the tenancy was revived or that he became the tenant of Balakhana after execution of the sale deed dated 7-12-59 is not supported, by any documentary evidence. Similarly there is nothing in Ext.4 to show that vendee was to get constructive possession only over the disputed accommodation and the actual possession would remain with the vendor. Defendant became full owner of the shop and Balakhana and had an absolute power of disposal on 25-9-1969 in favour of plaintiff through Ext.4. So the tenancy over the shop merged with the right of ownership of defendant under Sec.111, sub-clause (d) of the T.P. Act. It could not be revived on execution of sale deed Ext.4 on 25-9-1969 by defendant in favour of plaintiff. So the tenancy over the shop merged with the right of ownership of defendant under Sec.111, sub-clause (d) of the T.P. Act. It could not be revived on execution of sale deed Ext.4 on 25-9-1969 by defendant in favour of plaintiff. The point is well covered by a Division Bench of this Court in Reoti Saran v. Hargu Lal, reported in AIR 1964 All 542 where it was held : "Transfer of Property Act (1882), Section 111 (d) - Sale of demised property to tenant determines lease even though sale is one with a condition for repurchase. Tenants possession after reconveyance of property in the absence of fresh agreement of tenancy is wrongful. Tenant remains full owner of property from date of his purchase until resale by him in the absence of provision for keeping tenancy right alive either in sale deed or the agreement to reconvey - Hence execution of agreement to reconvey makes no difference to applicability of section to the case." 17. In Badri Narain Jha v. Rameshwar Dayal Singh reported in AIR 1951 SC 186 it was observed :- "If the lessor purchases the lessees interest the lease no doubt is extinguished as the same man cannot at the same time be both a landlord and a tenant........." 18. It appears that in that case there was extinction of lease as there was no union of the entire interest of lessor and lessee. In the present case the doctrine of merger came into play and the possession of defendant after execution of sale deed dated 25-9-1969 became wrongful. 19. Both the courts below did not find that U.P. (Temporary) Control of Rent and Eviction Act (Act No. 3 of 1947) or U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1970 came in the way of plaintiff in any manner. The mere fact that defendant happened to be a tenant of a portion of disputed accommodation on 7-12-1959 but became full owner thereafter and remained as such till 25-9-1969 could not revive the tenancy of the shop merely because vendee happened to be the wife of his erstwhile landlord of the shop. In this view of the matter I find no force in this appeal which is liable to be dismissed. 20. In the result the appeal is dismissed with costs. The impugned judgment and decree are affirmed. Appeal dismissed.