JUDGMENT Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.: - The question of law involved in this appeal is “whether a tenant of a mortgagee can continue as a tenant even after redemption of a mortgage or till he is evicted in accordance with the provision of the Rent Act?” 2. The plaintiffs are the heirs of Midu Mal s/o Hira Mal, who was the owner of the property in dispute. Midu Mal died on 22.4.1969 but during his life time, he mortgaged the suit property with Lila Devi w/o Des Raj for a sum of Rs.4000/- by executing a registered mortgage deed. The defendants are the legal heirs of Lila Devi (mortgagee), who refused to return the possession of the property in dispute on receipt of the mortgage money, therefore, the present suit has been filed. 3. Defendants have admitted the mortgage. It was pleaded that at the time of mortgage, the possession was not delivered to Lila Devi as Des Raj/defendant No.1 was already in possession as a tenant thus, according to them, defendant No.1 being the tenant of mortgagor cannot be ejected otherwise in due course of law. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed: - “1. Whether the plaintiffs are the sole reversioners of Middu Mal and as such are entitled to redeem the property in dispute? OPP. 2. Whether defendant No.1 is in possession of demised premises as a tenant of Middu Mal mortgagor and his brother Lachhman Dass prior to the mortgagee in dispute? OPD. 3. If issue No.2 is proved in affirmative whether the plaintiffs are entitled to decree for possession against defendant No.1? OPP 4. Whether the mortgagee effected improvements on the property in dispute to the extent of Rs.10,000/- ? If so, to what effect? OPD. 5. If issue No.2 is proved in affirmative whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit? OPD 6. Relief.” 4. In order to prove the tenancy of defendant No.1, reliance has been placed upon Ex.D2, D3 and D4. Defendant no.1 has alleged that the property in dispute was earlier mortgaged on 18.7.1957 by Midu Mal and Lachhman Dass in favour of Pushpa Devi w/o Ram Sukhdass Pabi, Advocate, and Dhanpat Mal to the extent of 1/2 share and his son Mohan Lal, Advocate to the extent of 1/2 share. Defendant no.1 has alleged that the property in dispute was earlier mortgaged on 18.7.1957 by Midu Mal and Lachhman Dass in favour of Pushpa Devi w/o Ram Sukhdass Pabi, Advocate, and Dhanpat Mal to the extent of 1/2 share and his son Mohan Lal, Advocate to the extent of 1/2 share. On 17.7.1958, Mohan Lal mortgagee inducted Des Raj/defendant No.1 as a tenant and received a lumpsum amount of rent for the period 18.7.1958 to 17.7.1959 vide receipt dated 17.7.1958 (Ex. D2) and for the period 18.7.1959 to 17.7.1960 vide receipt dated 18.7.1959 (Ex.D3). Thereafter, the property in dispute was redeemed by Midu Mal and defendant No.1 paid rent to him for the period 18.7.1960 to 18.1.1961 vide receipt dated 18.7.1960 (Ex.D4). It is also the case of the defendants that Lila Devi inducted Des Raj as a tenant vide rent deed dated 27.3.1961 (Ex.D5) while she was possessing the land in dispute as a mortgagee. The learned trial Court decreed the suit vide its judgment and decree dated 31.8.1984 disbelieving the receipt Ex.D4, which is the only evidence brought on record by the defendants to prove their tenancy under Midu Mal. However, the appeal filed by defendant No.1 has been allowed vide judgment and decree dated 1.2.1986 and it was ordered that the plaintiff would be entitled to redeem the mortgaged property but defendant No.1 would not to be dispossessed. The learned lower Appellate Court, after re-appreciating the evidence came to the conclusion that receipt Ex.D4 has been executed by the plaintiff and in that regard relied upon the experts evidence. The defendant examined Dewan K.S. Puri (DW8), who had opined that signatures of Midu Mal on the rent receipt and the mortgage deed are the same. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that receipt Ex.D4 has been wrongly believed because the attesting witness is not examined, the receipt does not disclose the description of the property in dispute, it is not referred to in the mortgage deed dated 18.1.1961, the receipt was allegedly executed in July 1960 but there is no reference of Des Raj being the tenant in the mortgage deed and mere payment of rent would not prove the relationship of landlord and tenant. In this regard, he has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the Case of “Sheodhari Rai and others Vs. In this regard, he has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the Case of “Sheodhari Rai and others Vs. Suraj Prasad Singh and others” 1954 AIR (SC) 758. He has also submitted that even if, for the sake of argument, document Ex.P4 is accepted as correct by this Court, defendant No.1 himself has tendered in evidence rent deed dated 28.3.1961 Ex.D5 alleging himself to be the tenant of Lila Devi (mortgagee) in which it is categorically mentioned that he has taken the shop on rent from 1.3.1961 to 28.2.1962 @ Rs.400/- per month. He has failed to produce any other receipt of rent executed by Midu Mal or his heirs after Ex.D4 nor did he mention any where that he has been paying rent to Midu Mal or his heirs during the period the property remained with his wife as a mortgagee rather his own stand is that he is the tenant of Lila Devi by virtue of rent deed dated 28.3.1961. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since defendant No.1 was inducted as a tenant by mortgagee, therefore, with the redemption of mortgage, his tenancy would also come to an end and would not be protected under any provision of Rent Act. In this regard, he has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “Hanumant Kumar Talesara Vs. Mohan Lal” 1988 AIR (SC) 299. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that defendant No.1 is an old tenant, who was earlier inducted by Mohan Lal, Advocate as a mortgagee when demised premises was mortgaged to him to the extent of ½ share on 18.7.1957 as in the mortgage deed it is recited that either the mortgagee himself occupy the demised premises or through the tenant. He has made a reference to the receipts dated 17.7.1958 (Ex.D2) and 18.7.1959 (Ex.D3) which relates to payment of rent by defendant No.1 to Mohan Lal, Advocate (mortgagee) but at the same time, it is not disputed that the said mortgage was redeemed by Midu Mal on 18.7.1960. He has made a reference to the receipts dated 17.7.1958 (Ex.D2) and 18.7.1959 (Ex.D3) which relates to payment of rent by defendant No.1 to Mohan Lal, Advocate (mortgagee) but at the same time, it is not disputed that the said mortgage was redeemed by Midu Mal on 18.7.1960. He has also submitted that Midu Mal had himself inducted him as a tenant which is allegedly proved through receipt Ex.D4 executed in his favour on 18.7.1960 and when the property in dispute was mortgaged by Midu Mal vide mortgage deed Ex.D1 to his wife Lila Devi on 1.1.1961, he continued to be in possession as a tenant under Midu Mal and cannot be dispossessed without resorting to the provisions of the Rent Act because the possession was not with the mortgagee when the suit for redemption was filed. He also submitted that Ex.D4 has been duly proved as the signature of Midu Mal has been proved on the receipt. However, he could not cite any precedent in his favour on the question framed by counsel for the appellant that if a mortgagee inducts a tenant then at the time of redemption of mortgage, the tenancy rights of such a tenant would come to an end. 8. I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties and examined the record. 9. Although, the appellant has attacked receipt Ex.D4 from various angles but it is also submitted that even if it is considered to have been proved, even then defendant No.1 could not be allowed to retain the possession as he himself has admitted of having been inducted as a tenant by a rent deed Ex.D5 by the mortgagee Leela Devi on 28.3.1961 for the period 1.3.1961 to 28.2.1962 @ Rs.400/- per month. 10. Now, the question is that if the defendant No.1 is admittedly inducted by mortgagee Leela Devi as a tenant, whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree for possession or not? 11. In this regard, the law is well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Hanumant Kumar (Supra) in which a similar question has been answered in the following manner “On a conspectus of all these decisions we hold that the lease given by mortgagee during the subsistence of the mortgage came to an end on the redemption of the mortgage. It is pertinent to mention that the question whether after termination of mortgagee’s interest on redemption of mortgage the lessees can claim the benefit of Rent Act was considered by the Full Bench of Rajasthan High Court in 1984 (RLR 709) and the High Court following the decisions of the Supreme Court has answered that “Tenant of the mortgagee in possession is not entitled to the protection of Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950 against the mortgagor after redemption of the mortgage.” The said view was accepted by the Supreme Court. 12. Thus, in view of the foregoing reasons, the question of law framed in the beginning of the judgment is answered in affirmative and it is held that if the tenant is inducted by mortgagee during the subsistence of mortgage, his tenancy would come to an end at the time of redemption of mortgage and he would not be entitled to take the plea of protection of the Rent Act. 13. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed and judgment and decree of the learned Ist Appellate Court by which judgment and decree of the trial Court has been modified is set aside and the judgment and decree of the trial court decreeing the suit of the plaintiff in toto is hereby restored. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————