JUDGMENT 1. - This is a revision against the order dated 23-11-95 passed by District Judge, Udaipur by which he dismissed the miscellaneous appeal of the petitioner against the order of Civil Judge (J.D.), Udaipur dated 8-10-95. 2. The facts may be narrated as follows : There was a shop situated in Surajpole, Udaipur. Ramlal was its tenant since before 1946. One Udaigiri was the landlord and used to realise its rent. On 4-5-1948 Udaigiri mortgaged the same property to Heeralal. After death of Udaigiri his legal representative Parmeshwar Giri filed a suit for redemption. Kailash and his mother were the parties in the suit. They submitted written statement wherein they averred that a tenant was in possession of the suit shop at the relevant time. Thus, it was admitted by the successors of Heeralal that the suit shop was in possession of the tenant even before the mortgage. Udaigiri used to realise the rent even up to nine years after shop was mortgaged. Plaintiff petitioner was getting receipts of the rent. He was, thus, a tenant of the shop and could not be evicted without due process of law while it was being tried to evict him. He prayed for temporary injunction. 3. The reply of the defendant respondent was that the plaintiff petitioner was not tenant and Udaigiri never inducted tenant in the shop. The shop was in possession of Laxmilal Agarwal to whom it was mortgaged. It was further averred that in the written statement of Kailash and his mother it was wrongly averred that the shop was in possession of the tenant. It was further averred that the disputed shop was taken from Heeralal Soni and the possession was given by Heeralal. It was prayed that the application for temporary injunction may be dismissed. After hearing both the parties, the learned Civil Judge (J. D.) dismissed the application for temporary injunction and the order was affirmed by the learned District Judge, Udaipur by the impugned order. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the view of the lower appellate Court that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to issue a temporary injunction in any case restraining the execution of decree lawfully obtained, is not well founded. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties at length and have gone through the record. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the view of the lower appellate Court that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to issue a temporary injunction in any case restraining the execution of decree lawfully obtained, is not well founded. He submitted that the words "attorn" and "attornment" simply mean an agreement or acknowledgement by a tenant that he holds the tenament of a new person as landlord. He also submitted that redemption of mortgage would revive the tenancy and in absence of surrender of lease by tenant in favour of landlord on redemption of mortgage, landlord mortgagor is not entitled automatically to recover the possession of the leased premises. Tenant's right to continue in possession subsists. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that there are concurrent findings of the trial Court as well as appellate Court and the same cannot be disturbed in revisional jurisdiction. For that purpose I may cite AIR 1976 SC 2621 , Municipal Corporation v. Suresh Chandra , in which trial Court and the appellate Court refused to grant interim injunction. It was held that if there is a concurrent finding regarding prima facie case, interference was unjustified. Learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to page No. 3 of the order of the trial Judge wherein he has posed a question which is to be tried before him to the effect whether Ramlal was inducted as a tenant since 1946 or whether he was a tenant of Udaigiri or a mortgagee. He submitted that this question was a triable issue and, therefore, there was a prima faice case. But the learned trial Judge was of the view that there was no prima facie case of the plaintiff petitioner because the execution of the decree of a competent Court which was likely to be passed could not be stayed by another civil suit in this way. This view of the trial Judge was affirmed by the appellate Judge holding that there was no prima facie case of the plaintiff petitioner and since the law is that when the trial Court and the appellate Court refused to grant interim injunction, no revision lies against concurrent finding. This view of the trial Judge was affirmed by the appellate Judge holding that there was no prima facie case of the plaintiff petitioner and since the law is that when the trial Court and the appellate Court refused to grant interim injunction, no revision lies against concurrent finding. Even then I am of the view that under Section 115, Civil Procedure Code the revisional Court can interfere only when there is error of jurisdiction by the Courts below or the trial Court as well as appellate Court might have given finding on conjectures and surmises and failed to consider relevant piece of evidence. But it is not so in the case in hand. The trial Court as well as the appellate Court have not assumed jurisdiction which does not exist in them. They have not made illegalities or irregularities in exercise of jurisdiction. They have also not based their finding on conjectures and surmises and have also not failed to consider relevant piece of evidence. In a Full Bench judgment of Rajasthan High Court in AIR 1985 Rajasthan 11, Devkinandan v. Roshanlal etc. , it has been held that a tenant of a mortgagee in possession is not entitled to the protection of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 against the mortgagor after the redemption of the mortgage. 7. In view of the fact that the Courts below have not committed any jurisdictional error and the concurrent finding of trial Judge as well as of the appellate Judge are not to be interfered with, I do not find any ground to interfere in the order of Courts below and this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. 8. Consequently, the revision petition is hereby dismissed. No orders as to costs.Revision dismissed. *******