The plaintiff/appellant has come-up in the present appeal being aggrieved by the dismissal of his suit by the trial Court which has been affirmed by the appellate Court. Plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of arrears of rent and the ejectment of the tenant from the house situated at Ghosipura. Ward No.31. Shivpuri. The plaintiff alleged that he purchased the said house by a registered sale deed dated 28.11.1984 from one Dhannobai. defendant No. 1 for a sum of Rs. 5.000/- and obtained the possession of it. The other two defendants Jagannath and Vijay Singh had consented to the sale. It is alleged that having sold the said house, defendant/respondent No. 1 obtained the house rent from the plaintiff. Rent note was also executed in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant No. 1 was inducted as a tenant at the rate of Rs. 125/- per month. Defendant did not pay the rent in spite of the notice dated 16.12.1994. Defendants 1 and 2 refused to take notice. hence the suit for recovery of arrears of rent and restoration of possession was filed on June 19, 1995. In the written statement of defendants denied the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendants, and contended that rent note was a nominal document and was not to be acted upon. It was reduced to writing in order to ensure the payment of loan amount which was advanced under the sale deed. It was a transaction of mortgage. Trial Court framed as many as 8 issues and came to the conclusion that the defendant was not occupying the house as tenant and the rent note is a nominal document and the plaintiff was not entitled to recover the rent under the rent note. The first appellate Court agreed with the findings recorded by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. This second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law :- "Whether in the absence of any prayer or action for setting-aside the sale deed by the defendant and finding that the property is mortgaged. the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent?" Learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Trustees of Motidas Beragi Sadhu, Ratlam Trust Board and others v. Ramjatan Ramprasad Sonar and others. 1963 JLJ 174 = AIR 1963 MP 265 . the plaintiff is entitled for arrears of rent?" Learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Trustees of Motidas Beragi Sadhu, Ratlam Trust Board and others v. Ramjatan Ramprasad Sonar and others. 1963 JLJ 174 = AIR 1963 MP 265 . in which it has been held that even if a deed of possessory mortgage provides for a lease back to the mortgager on a monthly rent corresponding to the monthly interest on the mortgage debt and a rent note is executed giving effect to the lease. effect must be given to each deed according to its terms and the Court cannot by reading the two together. spell out a transaction totally different in character. Learned counsel for the appellant further relied upon on a Supreme Court decision in the case of Mathuralal v. Kesharbai and another, AIR 1971 SC Page 310 in which the Supreme Court held as under :- "The reasoning of the Rajasthan judgment seems to be logical and commends itself to us. In all such cases the leasing back of the property arises because of the mortgage with possession but we find ourselves unable to hold that the mortgagee does not secure to himself any rights under the deed of lease but must proceed on his mortgage in case the amount secured to him under the deed of lease but must proceed on his mortgage in case the amount is not paid. If the security is good and considered to be sufficient by the mortgagee there is no reason why he should be driven to file a suit on his mortgage when he can file a suit for rent note. The position of the creditor is strengthened whereas in this case the interest on the amount of the mortgage is not the same as the rental fixed. If during the continuance of the' security the mortgagee wants to sue the mortgagor on the basis of the rent note and take possession himself or to induct some other tenant thereby securing to himself the amount which the mortgagor had covenated to pay, there can be no legal objection to it. Under the provisions of Order 34. Rule 4. he cannot deprive the mortgagor of his right to redeem excepting by proceeding on his mortgagee. Under the provisions of Order 34. Rule 4. he cannot deprive the mortgagor of his right to redeem excepting by proceeding on his mortgagee. Although we express no final opinion on this point it may be that a mortgagee who secures a decree for payment of arrears of rent cannot put the property to sale for realisation of the amount decreed but there can be no objection to his suing for possession if the rent note entitles him to do so. So long as the mortgagor had a right to redeem the mortgage he can always pay off the mortgagee and get back the possession. This position would continue so long as the property is 'not sold under a 'final decree for sale under the provisions of Order 34 CPC." Yet in another decision of the Apex Court in the matter of S.B. Abdul Azeez (by LRs.) v. M. Maniyappa Setty and another, AIR 1989 SC 553 . it has been held that mortgagee with possession is land-lord and is entitled to seek recovery of possession of leased premises from tenant for his own bona fide requirement of use. In yet another decision of this Court in the case of Phoolchand Jain v. Chhotelal and another, 1990 JLJ 434 it has been held that if the mortgagor has taken the mortgaged property on rent from mortgagee. such mortgagee becomes landlord of mortgagor and can sue on any of the grounds. Thus, the findings arrived at by the Courts below and in view of the transaction of the mortgage the plaintiff cannot recover the rent is not sustainable. Hence. the matter deserves to be remanded to the appellate Court to decide the case afresh after hearing both the parties so as to find out whether there is any ground available for the plaintiff to recover the rent and seek ejectment under.