JUDGMENT 1. - This second appeal under Section 100 CPC has been preferred by the appellant- Madanlal against the judgment and decree dated 31.1.91 passed by District Judge, Sikar, whereby the judgment and decree passed by Civil Judge, Sikar dated 25.8.80 in Civil Suit No. 7/78, as amended by order dated 5.9.85, was affirmed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent Nos.1 and 2 instituted civil suit No. 7/78, against the remaining respondents, for redemption of mortgage and possession of the suit-property. During pendency of the civil suit, on the application filed by respondent-Thakur Girdhari Singh, three shops were let-out to different persons. Out of these shops, one shop was let-out to the present appellant in compliance to the trial court order-dated 19.10.78, however, in revision that order of letting out the shops was set aside by this court on 18.12.79. The civil suit was decided by trial court on 25.8.80 decreeing the suit for redumption of the mortgagee during subsistence of the mortgage, but no order was passed for delivery of possession in respect of the three shops, including the one let-out to appellant-Madanlal. Thereafter, plaintiff-respondents moved application on 17.5.83 in the original suit (No. 7/78) with a prayer that the judgment and decree dated 25.8.80 may be amended by mentioning therein that the three shops which were let-out to the appellant and other two tenants during pendency of the suit through Nazir, be ordered to be given to them. The said tenant-appellant filed an application under Order 1, Rule 10 CPC on 19.3.84 before trial court for being impleaded as a party, but the same was rejected on 2.1.84. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, appellant preferred revision-petition before this court, which was later-on dismissed as withdrawn. Thereafter, on 5.9.85 trial court accepted the application of the plaintiff and according to the prayer, amended the decree. Against that judgment, appellant-Madanlal preferred appeal before the District Judge Sikar, which was dismissed, hence this second appeal has been preferred by the tenant-appellant. 3. While admitting the appeal for hearing, this court on 3.7.92 framed substantial question of law about the status of tenants admitted by the mortgagee. 4. Against that judgment, appellant-Madanlal preferred appeal before the District Judge Sikar, which was dismissed, hence this second appeal has been preferred by the tenant-appellant. 3. While admitting the appeal for hearing, this court on 3.7.92 framed substantial question of law about the status of tenants admitted by the mortgagee. 4. It was, inter alia, contended that appellant has been inducted as tenant on the application of plaintiff respondent-Thakur Girdhari Singh by the court, though that order of the trial court has been set aside by this court in revision petition on the prayer of other respondents but the appellant was never dispossessed and plaintiff-respondent Thakur Girdhari Singh continued to receive rent regularly, therefore, in this situation, by the conduct of parties, fresh relationship of land-lord and tenant established. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent submitted that appellant has no locus standi to file this appeal since he was not party in the suit and the application filed by him for impleadment, has been rejected and the revision petition filed by appellant against that order has also been got dismissed. It was then submitted that appellant was inducted as tenant by the order of the trial court which was set aside by this court in revision. Therefore, appellant is precluded to claim his rights as tenant by virtue of that judgment. It was then submitted that regular suit filed by the appellant on the same subject-matter, has also been dismissed. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made at the Bar. 7. It is not disputed that appellant has been inducted as tenant in the suit-shop by the order of the trial court dated 19.10.78 and in pursuance of that order, rent-note was also got executed and possession was handed over to appellant, but that order of trial court has been set aside by this court in revision on 18.12.79. Therefore, the appellant is precluded from claiming his tenancy rights on account of the order of trial court dated 19.10.78. However, if by subsequent act of the parties any relationship of landlord and tenant has been created, in that situation appellant is free to file any objection before the executing court in regard to such rights. With these observations this appeal is disposed of. No order as to costs.Appeal Disposed Of. *******