JUDGEMENT 1. This second appeal has been filed on behalf of Defendant-Respondent-Appellant challenging the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below. 2. The matter arises out of Mortgage Suit No. 12 of 1995 (9/1998), which was filed by Plaintiffs-Appellants-Respondents for a preliminary decree of redemption directing the defendant to deposit the mortgage deed and handover the vacant possession of the mortgaged property and thereafter for preparation of final mortgage decree and if the defendant fails to deliver the vacant possession to the plaintiffs, the same be delivered through the process of the court and also for other relief. 3. The said suit was decreed in part on contest by the learned Execution Munsif, Gaya vide his judgment and decree dated 30.7.1999 directing the defendant to handover the mortgage deed and other documents in respect of title to the plaintiffs and the defendant may receive the mortgage amount from the plaintiffs, but with regard to delivery of possession, the learned trial court held that since the defendant was earlier a tenant before the execution of the mortgage deed, the said tenancy revived after the redemption of mortgage. 4. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial court the plaintiffs filed Title Appeal No. 71 of 1999 (57 of 2006 ) in which the defendant appeared and filed cross-objection with regard to the question as to whether Rs. 22,550.00 as principal amount with interest and expenses made in the suit premises. 5. However, the said cross-objection of the defendant was rejected and the Title Appeal of the plaintiffs was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Fast Track Court-2, Gaya vide his judgment and decree dated 25.5.2007 directing the defendant to vacate the suit premises as his tenancy with the plaintiffs had come to an end after execution of the mortgage deed. This second appeal has been filed by the sole defendant challenging the judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below. 6. After hearing the argument of the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that admittedly the plaintiffs were the owner of the suit property and the defendant was their tenant since 1965. 6. After hearing the argument of the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials on record including the impugned judgments and decree of the learned courts below, it is quite apparent that admittedly the plaintiffs were the owner of the suit property and the defendant was their tenant since 1965. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiffs mortgaged the said property to one Sarojani Devi vide mortgage deed which was effective from 5.12.1969 to 6.1.1972 and during that period the tenancy of the defendant continued, as he paid rent to the said mortgagee Sarojani Devi but subsequently the said usufructuary mortgage was redeemed and a fresh deed of usufructuary mortgage dated 16.2.1972 (Ext.-A/1) was executed by the plaintiffs in favour of the defendant as mortgagee of the suit land for four years but mortgage having not been redeemed within the said four years i.e. by 1976, the defendant continued in possession without payment of any rent. 7. It transpires that in the year 1994 the plaintiffs filed Misc. Case bearing Misc. Case No. 25 of 1994 under the provision of Section 83 of the Transfer of Property Act, which was allowed ex parte by the learned Munsif 1st, Gaya and the principal mortgage amount with respect to the usufructuary mortgage in favour of the defendant was deposited by the plaintiffs in that court for being paid to the mortgagee but the defendant claimed that he never received that amount, as he had no notice or information about the said case. 8. Now according to learned counsel for the appellant, two questions arise for determination in the instant second appeal; Firstly as to whether after redemption of the mortgage the earlier relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties shall automatically revive operating as a clog on the right of recovery of possession in favour of the plaintiffs; and Secondly whether the plaintiffs evasive denial of the interrogatories would render the defendants documents deemed to have been admitted. 9. 9. So far the first question is concerned, it is not in dispute that earlier from 1965 defendant was tenant of the plaintiffs and even during the usufructuary mortgagee of Sarojani Devi from 5.12.1969 to 6.1.1972, he remained tenant because admittedly he used to pay rent to the said usufructuary mortgagee but from the date the defendant became usufructuary mortgagee himself from 16.2.1972, he stopped payment of rent and hence the relationship between the parties as landlord and landlord ceased to exist and a new relationship of mortgagor and mortgagee started. 10. It further transpires from the judgments of the courts below that the usufructuary mortgage with the defendant was for a period of four years up till 1976 and there was no clause in the said mortgage deed that the tenancy would revive after the redemption of the said usufructuary mortgage. Furthermore, even after the expiry of the said period of four years in 1976 the defendant remained in possession of the suit premises, as the mortgage was not redeemed by the plaintiffs nor any effort was made by the defendant to recover the mortgage amount from the plaintiffs and hence no rent was paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs thereafter. 11. Although order dated 27.3.1995 passed by MunsiMst, Gaya in Misc. Case No. 25 of 1994 was an ex parte order but it is not in dispute that the plaintiffs had deposited the mortgage amount in the court, which is still deposited there and immediately afterthe said Misc. Case was allowed the instant mortgage suit was filed by the plaintiffs for redemption of mortgage. In the said circumstances, there is no question of revival of the relationship, of landlord and tenant between the parties which existed prior to the initiation of the usufructuary mortgage between the plaintiffs and defendant and immediately on execution of the mortgage deed dated 16.2.1972 the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties came to an end and a new relationship mortgagor and mortgagee got started which also ended on the redemption of mortgage by the orders of the learned court below and hence there was no question of revival of the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. 12. 12. So far the second question raised by the appellant is concerned, the interrogatories were filed by the defendant in the trial court under the provision of Order XII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said provision is with respect to documents only and provides that documents to be deemed be admitted if not denied by the plaintiffs. The claim of the defendant-appellant is that the plaintiffs gave evasive reply and hence his documents would be deemed to be admitted documents. Those documents are Exts. E and E/1 and the said documents are rent receipts with regard to payment made by the defendant during pendency of usufructuary mortgage of Sarojani Devi and the rent receipt issued in favour of the defendant by the father of the plaintiffs before the aforesaid mortgage. 13. From the said facts and circumstances, even if the said documents are deemed to have been admitted by the plaintiffs it will not adversely affect their case in any manner, whatsoever, as the relationship of landlord and tenant between the defendant and the plaintiffs ceased to exist much after the said receipts and only after the deed of mortgage between the plaintiffs and the defendant came in existence. 14. In the said circumstances, both the points raised by the learned counsel for the appellants fails. This court does not find any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree of the learned court of appeal below nor any substantial question of law is involved in the instant second appeal which is thus dismissed at this stage of hearing under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.