Judgment : 1. This is an appeal by the Original Defendant Nos.1 and 2 who suffered a decree for redemption which was confirmed by the First Appellate Court. 2. The facts giving rise to this Appeal in short are as under:The suit property originally belonged to one Arjun Nivrutti Darwade and his family. Defendants father Sirajuddin was inducted as a tenant in the suit property way back in the year 1939. Rent was increased from time to time. In the year 1952, Arjun Darwade and his family was in need of money. As a result of that, they made a request to tenant Sirajuddin to advance a sum of Rs. 12,000/to them. Sirajuddin agreed to advance Rs. 12,000/upon an execution of a mortgage deed in his favour. On 2911952 Arjun Darwade mortgaged the suit property to Sirajuddin. Term of the said mortgage was fixed for a period of 21 years. It was therefore to expire in the year 1973. In the mean while, Arjun Darwade sold the suit property to the present Plaintiff in the year 1956. The Plaintiff therefore has now instituted this suit for redemption of mortgage, since the defendants had refused to redeem the mortgage and deliver back the possession. 3. The suit was resisted by the defendants. The defendants do not dispute that there was mortgage deed executed by Arjun Darwade in favour of Sirajuddin. They do not dispute that the mortgage was to be in existence for a period of 21 years. They however contend that even though there was a transaction of mortgage between Arjun Darwade and Sirajuddin, still Sirajuddin continued to be a tenant. He was occupying the suit property as a tenant and he was also paying rent to Arjun Darwade which was agreed to be appropriated towards interest payable on the sum secured under the mortgage. It is their contention that even though the mortgage period is over, they continue to be tenants and they have a right to be in possession of the suit property in spite of redemption of mortgage as tenants. 4. The learned Judge of the trial Court held that there was a mortgage and it was to be redeemed after a period of 21 years. Since he held that the Plaintiff was entitled for redemption, he passed a decree directing the present appellants/defendants to deliver back the possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff. 5. 4. The learned Judge of the trial Court held that there was a mortgage and it was to be redeemed after a period of 21 years. Since he held that the Plaintiff was entitled for redemption, he passed a decree directing the present appellants/defendants to deliver back the possession of the suit premises to the Plaintiff. 5. The present appellants/defendants preferred an appeal before the District Judge. The Additional District Judge concurred with the findings recorded by the learned Judge of the trial Court and confirmed the decree. Feeling aggrieved thereby, this second appeal has been preferred. 6. The appeal was admitted by this Court on the following substantial questions of law : (A) Whether the Courts below have properly construed and interpreted the document mortgage deed in question ? (B) Whether the Courts below have properly considered the merger of tenancy rights into mortgage as required under the provisions of law ? (C) When the statute requires the termination of tenancy by virtue of giving notice of a period required under the statute can the tenancy rights cancelled under the mortgage deed be legal and valid to hold that it does not survive after the period of mortgage is over and the landlord can take possession of the leasehold property by virtue of the mortgage deed by filing the suit for redemption of mortgage? 7. The learned counsel for the Respondents at the outset contends that in fact there is no substantial question of law involved in this Second Appeal and, the question as to whether lease came to an end or not, upon execution of the mortgage would be a purely question of fact which cannot be agitated in second appeal. He submits that the Courts below have concurrently held that the defendants were in possession of the suit property as mortgagees and not as tenants and the mortgage having been redeemed, the defendants have lost right to be in possession of the suit property. He further submits that this is a question of fact purely and the same having been answered concurrently by both the courts below against the defendants, this Court cannot interfere with the said finding of facts. The submission of the learned counsel for the Respondents cannot be accepted. To answer this question, documents need to be interpreted. He further submits that this is a question of fact purely and the same having been answered concurrently by both the courts below against the defendants, this Court cannot interfere with the said finding of facts. The submission of the learned counsel for the Respondents cannot be accepted. To answer this question, documents need to be interpreted. It is now a settled proposition of law that interpretation of document is itself a substantial question of law. In the present case what needs to be interpreted is the rent note as well as the mortgage deed. I have therefore no hesitation in holding that the substantial questions of law as have been raised do arise in the present appeal. 8. The undisputed facts are as follows: "The defendants were inducted as tenants since before 1939. The predecessor in title of the Plaintiff mortgaged the suit property with the defendants who were occupying the suit property as tenants in 1952. The period of mortgage was 21 years. During subsistence of this mortgage the original landlord sold the suit property to the present Plaintiff in the year 1956. The period of 21 years was to expire in the year 1973. The Plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants to hand over possession of the suit property to him after terminating the tenancy. The defendants failed. The day on which the mortgage deed was executed, the earlier rent note was cancelled and a fresh rent note was executed." 9. The material question in this appeal to my mind is, whether the Plaintiff is entitled to actual possession upon redemption of mortgage or to a symbolic possession? This question can be answered, upon answering the question, if the tenant totally looses his character as tenant upon becoming mortgagee of the property, or he continues to occupy the same under both the characters i.e. mortgagee and tenant. In the context, the document will have to be interpreted and the intention of the parties will have to be looked into by looking into the surrounding circumstances. 10. There is no doubt that the old rent note was cancelled upon execution of mortgage deed Exhibit 58. The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the fact that old rent note prior to 1952 was cancelled itself suggests that the relationship of landlord and tenant had come to an end and relationship of debtor creditor was created. 10. There is no doubt that the old rent note was cancelled upon execution of mortgage deed Exhibit 58. The learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the fact that old rent note prior to 1952 was cancelled itself suggests that the relationship of landlord and tenant had come to an end and relationship of debtor creditor was created. The submission cannot be accepted. On the very same day another fresh rent note was executed by mortgagee in favour of mortgagor landlord vide Exhibit 54. The contents of Exhibit 58 the mortgage deed itself to my mind an eloquent enough to hold that the parties never intended to put an end to the relationship of landlord and tenant. Clause No. 4 of Exhibit 58 reads as follows:- HINDI "As translated : it is agreed between you and us that a sum of Rs.60/would be paid which is equivalent to interest at eight anna per cent per month on the sum secured. We have let out to you property described in clause 1(A) and(B) for a period of 21 years at the rate of Rs.60/per month and for the same you have executed a separate rent note in our favour. Accordingly the said property shall remain in your possession for a period of 21 years. Sum of Rs. 60/which is payable as rent is agreed to be appropriated towards interest and we agree to issue a rent receipt every month for the same. A bare reading of this clause would go to show that a fresh lease for a period of 21 years was created and for that a separate rent note was also executed. The rent was also settled at Rs.60/per month and the said rent payable by the tenant mortgagee was to be appropriated towards interest payable on money lent by the mortgagee. Exhibit 54 is the rent note dated 2911952. It also shows that rent of Rs.60/per month was agreed to be paid. Not only there is a fresh rent note but the defendant has also placed on record the rent receipts under which the rent was paid by the mortgagee tenant to the landlord mortgagor. They are at Exhibits 49 to 53. It also shows that rent of Rs.60/per month was agreed to be paid. Not only there is a fresh rent note but the defendant has also placed on record the rent receipts under which the rent was paid by the mortgagee tenant to the landlord mortgagor. They are at Exhibits 49 to 53. Not only these documents certainly go to show that the parties intended to continue their relationship of landlord and tenant but there is another evidence available in the form of notice issued by the landlord plaintiff to the defendantstenants. The said notice is at Exhibit 36 date 22868. In this notice the Plaintiff himself describes the defendants as tenants and even terminates the tenancy. This therefore also supports the case of the defendant that he continues to occupy the premises in his character as tenant. The learned Judges of the Courts below have failed to consider this evidence altogether." 11. The Supreme Court dealing with identical fact situation has observed in the decision reported in AIR 1991 SC 2046 in the case of Nemi Chand v. Onkar Lal. The relevant observations read thus : “4. The deed shows that the appellant was in possession of the property as a lessee. This is clear from the words “the upper storey is on rent to you:. It is not disputed that this was the position. The document further shows that during the period of the mortgage which was to last 5 years, neither interest nor rent was payable by the parties, both amounts being equal. This shows that the rent was kept alive and it was to be adjusted against the interest. The lease subsisted, though the parties entered into a new relationship of creditor and debtor on the security of the property already in the possession of the appellant as a lessee. The mortgage was usufrcutuary in character, the possession being already with the appellant. He held the property bot as a lessee and a mortgagee. 5. The Courts below misconstrued the document to read that no rent accrued during the period of the mortgage and that there was a symbolic surrender of possession by the appellant upon execution of the mortgage deed. This was not the correct position and it was a wrong reading of the document resulting in an error of law. 5. The Courts below misconstrued the document to read that no rent accrued during the period of the mortgage and that there was a symbolic surrender of possession by the appellant upon execution of the mortgage deed. This was not the correct position and it was a wrong reading of the document resulting in an error of law. The words “there shall be no interest of amount to you and no rent of the house. The interest of the amount and the rent of the house are equal” . Show that both interests and rent accrued, but both being in equal sums, neither was payable. That was an adjustment of one liability against another. In other words the relationship between the parties as lessor and lessee subsisted. There was no merger of the lease and the mortgage. No such merger could take place in law. 6. The decree for redemption only redeemed the mortgage and did not determine the lease. That is a relationship which still subsists and is determinable according to law. See the principle stated by this Court in Nand Lal v. Sukh Dev, 1987 (Supp) SCC 87, Shah Mathurdas Maganlal and Co. v. Nagappa Shankarappa Malage, (1976) 3 SCR 789 : (AIR 1976) SC 1565) and Gambangi Applaswamy Naidu v. Behara Venkataramanayya Patro (1985) 1 SCR 651 : ( AIR 1984 SC 1728 ) In para 4 the Supreme Court clearly says that the appellant held the property both as a lessee and a mortgagee. In the reported case the rent was kept alive and was to be adjusted against the interest. In the case at hand, I have quoted clause 4 above which also clearly stipulates that the rent was to be appropriated towards interest. This decision squarely applies to the case at hand." 12. In yet another decision reported in AIR 2001 SC 2284 in the case of Nirmal Chandra v Vimal Chand the court observed in para 8 and 9 as under : "8. From a perusal of the decisions of this Court as indicated above, it clearly emerges that there is no automatic merger of two rights where mortgage is executed in favour of a tenant and on redemption of mortgage, the tenancy rights kept in abeyance would revive and entitle the tenant to continue in possession even after the redemption of the mortgage. On execution of mortgage, tenancy rights would terminate only if it is clear expressly or impliedly by conduct or other related circumstances that the parties had intended so which would be a question of fact. Thus as a normal rule except in intention being to the contrary, mortgage and lease operate independent of each other and on mortgage coming to an end by redemption, tenancy would revive. 9. In the light of the law on the point indicated above we may now advert to the terms and conditions of the mortgage deed in hand. The Condition No.1 of the mortgage deed lays down that the interest of the mortgage money and the rent of the shop would be equal. The Condition No.4 which is also relevant and as quoted, on being translated into English, in the order of the High Court, is as follows: After the expiry of the period of ten years when I get the shop redeemed, I would use it for my own purpose for at least three years. After getting it redeemed, I would neither give it on rent nor keep any partner with me. In case it is given to someone on rent, the mortgagee shall have right to take back possession of the shop in his capacity as a tenant. It is to be noticed that under Condition No.1 the payment of rent is kept alive. It is sought to be adjusted by the amount of interest payable by the mortgagor lessor to the lessee. Thus it is quite clear that element of tenancy and payment of rent operated throughout the period of mortgage. It is not denied before us that during all this period, the tenant remained in actual possession. His status as a tenant never ceased as amount of interest to which he was entitled to on Rs.10,000/advanced to mortgagor was adjusted towards rent payable by him as a tenant of the accommodation to the landlord. It is not denied before us that during all this period, the tenant remained in actual possession. His status as a tenant never ceased as amount of interest to which he was entitled to on Rs.10,000/advanced to mortgagor was adjusted towards rent payable by him as a tenant of the accommodation to the landlord. In similar circumstances we have already seen that in the cases of Gambangi Appalaswamy Naidu as well as Nemi Cchand (Supra) this Court held that where rent is kept alive, it runs contrary to the intention or conduct of the parties leading to any inference of surrender of lease.In our view this fact alone is enough to hold that there was no merger of two rights nor surrender of tenancy could be inferred on the facts and circumstances or on the basis of the terms and conditions of the mortgage. As a matter of fact, Condition No.4 on which much reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the appellant does not help him very much. It is no doubt initially indicated on expiry of ten years on redemption of mortgage the lessor would use the shop for his own purpose for at least three years. It would neither be given on rent nor he shall have any partner with him. It is further provided that in case it is given to some one on rent, the mortgagee shall have the right to take back possession in his capacity as tenant (emphasis supplied by us). This condition no where speaks of surrender of tenancy by the lessee. It only provides that for at least three years shop will be in personal use of the landlord failing which there would be revival of the mortgagees capacity as tenant. Such a condition cannot be said to be a clear intention of surrendering the lease rights in the property. Whatever little effect Condition No.4 if at all may have, is negated by Condition No.1 which kept the rent alive and the element of tenancy pervading throughout the period of mortgage.” The Supreme Court in this decision makes a reference to the decision in Nemichand’s case and says that when rent is kept alive it runs contrary to the theory of surrender." 13. In the case at hand, there is no evidence of surrender at all. In the case at hand, there is no evidence of surrender at all. On the other hand the evidence as discussed by me above would show that the parties intended to keep the relationship of landlord and tenant subsisting. There is no escape but to hold that simply because the mortgage deed was executed, landlordtenant relationship came to an end. That relationship continues to subsist in this particular case. 14. The premises were governed at the time of institution of suit by Bombay Rent Act and even on the day on which the suit was decreed. No tenant could therefore be evicted without recourse to the provisions of Bombay Rent Act or without recourse to the provisions of Maharashtra Rent Act. In the circumstances, the learned Judges of the courts below have fallen in error in directing the appellant to hand over the possession to the landlord because the property has been redeemed. In the circumstances, I find that the Plaintiff was not entitled to actual possession of the suit property and, in this case he ought to file a separate suit under the provisions of Rent Act, if he wants to evict the defendants/tenants. 15. In the circumstances, the appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decrees passed by the courts below are partly set aside. The claim of the Plaintiff for actual possession of the suit property is dismissed. While the claim in respect of redemption of mortgage stands confirmed. The Appellants are entitled to the costs of this appeal. Decree be drawn up accordingly.