JUDGMENT R. L. Khurana, J.—This is the plaintiffs second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 29-6-1988 of the Additional District Judge (II), Kangra at Dbaramshaia whereby the appeal filed by the defendant against the judgment and decree dated 30-3-1985 of Sub-Judge, Nurpur was set aside, 2 Briefly stated, the facts of the present case are these. Land measuring 4 kanals 7 marlas comprising of khasra No. 19, Khewat No 51 khatauni No 83 of Tikka and Mauza Khbbar, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra (specifically described in the plaint and hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute) was owned by one Roda It used to be cultivated by a tenant Rama till 1967-68 Thereafter the land in dispute came to be cultivated by one Milkhi. The said Milkhi also left the cultivation of the land in dispute which was then mortgaged by Roda in favour of one Beldev Singh, husband of the plaintiff. Said Baldev Singh during the sub-sistance of the mortgage, inducted the defendant as a tenant to the extent of 2/3rd share in the land in dispute Roda above named died and was succeeded by the present plaintiff under a will The mortgage qua the land in dispute created by Roda was redeemed by the plaintiff vide mutation No 503. After the redemption of the mortgage, the plaintiff brought a suit for possession of the land in dispute against the defendant by averring that his tenancy created by the mortgagee came to an end with the redemption of the mortgage and that since after such redemption, the possession of the defendant over the land in dispute was unauthorised 3. The suit was resisted by the defendant. The mortgage by Roda in favour of Baldev Singh was admitted. It was pleaded that he is coming in possession of the land in dispute as a tenant since prior to the mortgage under the original owner Roda. The suit was resisted by the defendant. The mortgage by Roda in favour of Baldev Singh was admitted. It was pleaded that he is coming in possession of the land in dispute as a tenant since prior to the mortgage under the original owner Roda. In the alternative, it was pleaded that in case he is found to have been inducted as a tenant by the mortgagee, he was so inducted by the mortgagee as an act of good management and the plaintiff was bound by the same and he would continue to be a tenant qua the land in dispute even after the redemption It was also averred that the mortgage in question was a fictitious transaction made just to defeat his rights qua the land in dispute Preliminary objections as to estoppel, suit being bad for nonjoinder of necessary parties, jurisdiction of the civil court and the suit being barred under Order 2, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure, were also raised. 4. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed by the learned Sub Judge, Nurpur vide judgment and decree dated 30-3-1985 The plaintiff was held to be the owner of the land in dispute. The defendant was found to have been inducted as a tenant qua the land in dispute by the mortgagee. Such induction was held to be not an act of good management The learned court below came to the conclusion that the tenancy created by the mortgagee in favour of the defendant came to an end with the redemption of the mortgage and that the plaintiff was entitled to claim the possession of the land in dispute The suit was held to be neither bad for non-joinder of necessary parties nor barred under Order 2, Rule 2, C. P. C The plaintiff was found to have locus standi and not estopped from filing the suit. 5. 5. The appeal by the defendant was allowed by the Additional District Judge (II) Kangra at Dharamshala vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 29-6-1988 The first appellate Court came to the conclusion that the tenancy in favour of the defendant was created by the mortgagee as an act of good management, therefore, binding on the mortgagor and his successor and that the defendant had become the tenant under the plaintiff and he could not be ejected from the land in dispute despite the redemption of the mortgage by the plaintiff. 6. The findings of the first appellate Court have been assailed before this court by the plaintiff on the ground that the tenancy in favour of the defendant by the mortgagee was not an act of good and prudent management in view of the fact that under the tenancy law, the tenant would acquire ownership rights qua the land in dispute on payment of nominal compensation and that as per the general law governing the relationship of the mortgagor and mortgagee, a mortgagee cannot create an interest in the mortgaged property which would enure beyond the termination of the interest of the mortgagee. 7. The defendant on the other hand while supporting the findings of the learned first appellate Court has contended that he was inducted as a tenant qua the land in dispute by the mortgagee as an act of good and prudent management. The plaintiff was bound by the tenancy created by the mortgagee and that he could not be evicted from the land in dispute except by recourse to the relevant tenancy laws, 8. I have heard Sh K.D. Sood, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff appellant and Sh. Bhupender Gupta, Advocate, the learned Counsel for the defendant-respondent, and have also gone through the record of the case. 9. There is no denying that as per the general rules governing the relationship between the mortgagor and the mortgagee, a mortgagee cannot create an interest in the mortgaged property which shall enure beyond the termination of his interest as a mortgagee. 10. 9. There is no denying that as per the general rules governing the relationship between the mortgagor and the mortgagee, a mortgagee cannot create an interest in the mortgaged property which shall enure beyond the termination of his interest as a mortgagee. 10. The Honble Supreme Court in AIR 1952 SO 205, Mahabir Gope and others v. Harbans Narain Singh and others, after having observed by reference to the normal relationship between the mortgagor and the mortgagee and their respective rights and obligations that a mortgagee cannot create an interest in the mortgaged property which will enure beyond the termination of his interest as mortgagee, has taken the precaution to point out in the following terms :— "A permissible settlement by a mortgagee in possession with a tenant in the course of prudent management and the springing up of rights in the tenant conferred or created by statute based on the nature of the land and possession for the requisite period is a difference matter altogether. It is an exception to the general rule. The tenant cannot be ejected by the mortgagor even after the redemption of the mortgage. He may become an occupancy raiyat’ in some cases and a non-occupancy raiyat in other cases. But the settlement of the tenant by the mortgagee must have been a bonafide’ one. This exception will not apply in a case where the terms of the mortgagee prohibit the mortgagee from making any settlement of tenants on the land either expressly or by necessary implication." 11. The above ratio was reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in AIR 1966 SC 1721, Prabhu v. Ramdeo and others. A single Judge (Handa, J.) of this Court in 1986 Sim LC 291, Bhagat Ram and another v, Asha and others, following the principles laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in Mahabir Gopes case (supra), and relying upon the definition of the word "tenant" as appearing in the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, has held that a tenant inducted by a mortgagee as an act of good management would become a tenant under the mortgagor after the mortgage and not liable to ejectment except in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. 12. 12. The first appellate Court while arriving at the conclusion that the defendant was inducted as a tenant qua the land in dispute by the mortgagee Baldev Singh and that he has become tenant under the plaintiff since after the mortgage and not liable to be ejected therefrom, has placed reliance on the ratio laid down in Bhagat Rams case (supra). 13. With all respect to the learned Judge (Handa, J.), the ratio laid down in Bhagat Rams case (supra), would not hold the field on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case Firstly, in the said case, the tenant was found to have been in possession of the mortgaged land since prior to the mortgage under the owner/mortgagee. Secondly, the tenant was found to have acquired protection on the coming into force of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953, which came into force with effect from 15-4-1953. 14. The expression tenant" was defined in section 2 (6) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 as having the meaning assigned to it in the Punjab Tenancy Act 1887 and as including a sub-tenant and self-cultivating lessee but shall not include a present holder as defined in section 2 of the Re-settlement Act. 15. The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 thus incorporated itself within the definition of expression "tenant" as given in the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. 15. The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 thus incorporated itself within the definition of expression "tenant" as given in the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. The word "tenant" has been defined in section 4 (5) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, as under :— "(5) "tenant" means a person who holds land under another person, and is, or but for a special contract would be, liable to pay rent for that land to that other person ; but it does not include :— (a) an inferior landowner, or (b) a mortgagee of the rights of a landowner, or (c) a person to whom a holding has been transferred, or an estate or holding has been let in farm, under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, for the recovery of an arrear of land revenue or of a sum recoverable as such an arrear, or (d) a person who takes from the (Government) a lease of unoccupied land for the purpose of sub-letting it " (Emphasis supplied) Relying upon the abovesaid definition of the word "tenant", It was held in Bhagat Rams case (supra), that though the "tenant of a mortgagee" with possession did not specifically figure in the definition of the tenant, as given in section 4 (5) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, at the same time, he was not ousted from the purview of the definition, which only required that a person should hold land under another person. 16 The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 as well as the Punjab" Tenancy Actt 1887, as were applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh stand repealed by virtue of section 126 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. 16 The Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 as well as the Punjab" Tenancy Actt 1887, as were applicable to the State of Himachal Pradesh stand repealed by virtue of section 126 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Section 2 (17) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 defines the word "tenant in the following terms :— “(17) "tenant" means a person who holds land under a landowner, and is, or but for a contract to the contrary would be liable to pay rent for that land to that landowner and includes : — (i) a sub-tenant (x x x) ; and (ii) the predecessors or successors in interest of a tenant or a sub-tenant, as the case may be, but it does not include :— (a) a (mere) mortgagee of the rights of landowner, or (b) a person to whom a holding has been transferred or an estate or holding has been let in farm under the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1934 (6 of 1954), or the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 (17 of 1887), as the case may be, for the recovery of an arrear of land revenue or of a sum recoverable as such an arrear." (Emphasis supplied) 17. A comparative reading of the definition of the word "tenant" as appearing in section 4 (5) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 and as defined under section 2 (17) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act 1972 shows that while under the Punjab Act a tenant means "a person who holds land under another person", under the Himachal Pradesh Act, a tenant means Ma person who holds land under a land owner". Thus, an important and significant departure has been made in the Himachal Pradesh Act from the Punjab Act, while defining the word "tenant". For becoming a tenant within the provisions of the Himachal Pradesh Act, a person must hold land under a land owner. 18. Section 2 (10) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 defines "land owner" as meaning a person defined as such in the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953 or the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, as the case may be and shall include the predecessor or successor in interest of the land owner. 18. Section 2 (10) of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972 defines "land owner" as meaning a person defined as such in the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953 or the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, as the case may be and shall include the predecessor or successor in interest of the land owner. The definition of the word "land owner" as contained in section 4 (9) of the Himachal Pradesh Land Revenue Act, 1953 as well as in section 3 (2) of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 is practically the same. Both the sections provide that "land owner" does not include a tenant or an assignee of land revenue but does include a person to whom a holding revenue or of a sum recoverable as such an arrear, and every other person not hereinbefore in this clause mentioned who is in possession of an estate or any share or portion thereof, or in the enjoyment of any part of the profits of an estate. This definition, prima facie, does not include a mortgagee. Therefore, a person holding the land as a tenant under the mortgagee cannot be deemed to be a tenant under a landowner. Therefore, the protection which was available to the tenant inducted by the mortgagee in Bhagat Rams case (supra), cannot be extended to the defendant in the present case. 19. Similarly in Prabhu v, Ramdeo and others, AIR 1966 SC 1721, the protection to the tenant inducted by the mortgagee was extended by virtue of section 15 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, which had come into force before the redemption of the mortgage by the mortgagor The statutory benefit was thus extended to the tenant inducted by the mortgagee in view of the relevant provisions of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and it was held that the tenant inducted by the mortgagee would become a tenant under the owner-mortgagor after the redemption of the mortgage. No such statutory protection, as stated above, is available to the defendant in the present case under any provision of the law as inforce at the time of the redemption of the mortgage. 20. Since the rights of the defendant inducted by the mortgagee have not improved by virtue of statutory provisions, as are inforce, the present case has to be dealt with under the general law, that is, The Transfer of Property Act. 20. Since the rights of the defendant inducted by the mortgagee have not improved by virtue of statutory provisions, as are inforce, the present case has to be dealt with under the general law, that is, The Transfer of Property Act. The general rule that a raorgagee cannot create an interest in the mortgaged property which will enure beyond the termination of his interest as mortgagee, would be applicable in the present case Therefore, the tenancy created by the mortgagee in favour of the defendant will be deemed to have come to an end on the redemption of the mortgage by the plaintiff. 21. Even otherwise, the defendant cannot be said to have been inducted as a tenant qua the land in dispute by the mortgagee as an act of good and prudent management. Admittedly, the defendant was inducted as a tenant by the mortgagee sometime in the year 1970-71 when the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy Law was under contemplation, whereby the tenant was being given a right to acquire the proprietary rights of the tenancy land on payment of nominal compensation to the land owner 22. As a result, the present appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and decree dated 29-6-1988 of the first appellate Court is set aside while the judgment and decree dated 30-3-1985 of the learned Sub-Judge, Nurpur is restored. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Appeal allowed.