M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a defendant's second appeal against the concurrent findings of the courts below. ( 2 ) THE plaintiffs brought the suit for redemption of mortgage said to have be encreated in the year 1970-71 in respect of certain premises being shop premises situate in bidar. The plaintiffs-mortgagers received Rs. 5,000/- from the defendant and executed a deed of possessory mortgage. In accordance with the terms of the deed of mortgage, he offered to tender the mortgage amount and sought redemption and possession of the property. The defendant did not oblige. Therefore, they filed the suit for redemption. The defendant resisted (he suit inter alia on the ground that though he was a mortgagee in possession from the date of the deed of mortgage and even prior to that date he was tenant and his tenancy was kept in abeyance during the subsistence of the mortgage and once the mortgage was redeemed his tenancy was revived and therefore he could not be evicted from the place by that court. ( 3 ) ON that issue both the courts have recorded a finding that the mortgagee-defendant was not a tenant but his uncle was the tenant under a deed of lease executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the said uncle. That any business carried on by the defendant was only on behalf of the uncle. The mortgagee not being a tenant he could not plead that there was a revival of his tenancy on redemption. That finding is based on the evidence placed by the parties before the courts below. The evidence placed before the court by the defendant was certain receipts and factum that he had paid the tax and obtained telephone connection in his own name. These documents in themselves do not evidence or prove that he is a tenant though in certain circumstances they may be considered to be evidence of such a plea. ( 4 ) IN the instant case, the original tenant examined as d. w. 8 who had stated in his oral testimony that receipts were issued in his name by the landlord prior to the deed of mortgage. But the court found the name of the defendant also in the receipts. ( 4 ) IN the instant case, the original tenant examined as d. w. 8 who had stated in his oral testimony that receipts were issued in his name by the landlord prior to the deed of mortgage. But the court found the name of the defendant also in the receipts. Therefore, it concluded that the name of the defendant had been included in the receipt in order to create evidence in favour of the plea that he was a tenant. Therefore, the courts below discarded that evidence. ( 5 ) IN that view of the matter, there is no reason for this court to interfere with thefinding of fact in this second appeal as no substantial question of law arises from that reasoning or from the reasoning adopted to reach that conclusion. ( 6 ) IT was, however, argued by Mr. K. s. savanur, learned counsel for the appellant, who cited several decisions of the Supreme Court and in particular the case of roshanlal v madanlal, AIR 1975 SC 2130 . In the said case the Provisions of the Madhya Pradesh rent control and eviction act fell for consideration. Section 12 of the said act provided for the mode of eviction of tenants protected by the Provisions of the act. That Section 12 of the act provided, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a tenant shall not be evicted except on the ground specified under that sub-section (corresponding to Section 21 of the Karnataka Rent Control Act ). It was, therefore, contended by Mr. Savanur, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant that the civil court in a mortgage suit could not pass an order directing to deliver possession because it would amount to eviction of a tenant which was exclusively the task of a special court assigned that function under the relevant law. There cannot be any two opinions about the correctness of the ratio decidendi of the aforementioned decision. In fact, the decision itself proceeds on the basis that the question raised therein was not res integra. In other words, such view had been taken by the Supreme Court even in earlier cases on similar Provisions in statutes giving protection to the tenant from eviction. In fact, the decision itself proceeds on the basis that the question raised therein was not res integra. In other words, such view had been taken by the Supreme Court even in earlier cases on similar Provisions in statutes giving protection to the tenant from eviction. But when the finding is that he is not a tenant question of giving that benefit under the enactment would not arise nor would it be urge as precluding the ordinary civil court from exercising its jurisdiction to grant a decree for redemption or mortgage which essentially is a dispute of civil nature dealt with by ordinary civil courts. There is no force in the submission nor can it be said that the authorities cited are appropriate to the facts in this case. No such proposition as excluding the civil court to try a suit for redemption of mortgage was ever considered by the Supreme Court in that case. ( 7 ) NO substantial question of law really arises for consideration and therefore this second appeal is misconceived and it is rejected. ( 8 ) BEFORE parting with this case i must notice that there was yet another argument urged by Mr. Savanur that the decree was not properly drawn up by the trial court i. e. , the preliminary decree. True, the court-below while drawing up has blindly incorporated in the decree all the paragraphs in the prescribed form instead of confining it to those applicable to a suit for redemption. If that is a defect with which the appellant is aggrieved, he is free to make an application for drawing up the decree and confine it to the facts of the case and draw up a decree for redemption only. That cannot be done in this court. Subject to the above observation, this appeal is dismissed. --- *** --- .