JUDGMENT : Mr. Jainendra Kumar Ranka, J. 1. Instant first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.10.1991 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 3 Jaipur City Jaipur in Civil Suit No. 119 of 90 whereby the suit of the plaintiff-respondent against the defendant-appellant Rajasthan Financial Corporation for recovery of Rs. 41,118.75/- has been decreed. 2. The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit against the defendant-appellant asserting that the shop No.13 Sethi Colony, Jaipur was taken on rent by one Mr. Anant Ram s/o Shri Vaid Nath Jain owner of Anand Metal Industries from 01.02.1981 @ Rs.600/- per month exclusive of house tax and the rent note was executed in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. It was further averred that subsequently from 01.04.1982, the room situated on first floor of the shop was further taken on rent @ Rs.200 per month by the said Sh. Anant Ram and ultimately from 01.04.1984, the combined revised rent was Rs.900/- per month. The respondent-plaintiff further averred that the tenant paid rent only up to 31.08.1984 and as rent was due from 01.09.1984, a suit was filed by the plaintiff against the Anant Ram which was decreed on 18.02.1987. It was further averred that the defendant-appellant-corporation took possession of the rented premises/property on 01.08.1985 on account of default in payment of loan being committed by the tenant Anant Ram thus the defendant Corporation was using the property from 01.08.1985 and they were liable to pay rent from 01.08.1985 and hence rent and house tax totalling to Rs. 41,118.75/- was claimed in the suit. 3. The defendant-appellant entered appearance in the suit and by submitting their written statement contended that they have taken possession of the property under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act but the liability to pay rent was of the tenant. The date of taking possession being 01.08.1985 was admitted but it was averred that suit without impleading the tenancy was not maintainable. 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties six issues were framed and to substantiate her claim, plaintiff submitted documentary evidence and her husband Mr. Ramkaran was also her power of attorney holder entered into witness box. The defendant Corporation neither submitted any documentary evidence nor any oral evidence. 5. Ld. Trial Court after hearing the parties and scrutinizing the material available on record decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Ramkaran was also her power of attorney holder entered into witness box. The defendant Corporation neither submitted any documentary evidence nor any oral evidence. 5. Ld. Trial Court after hearing the parties and scrutinizing the material available on record decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Finally aggrieved, the instant appeal is preferred by the defendant corporation. 7. Ld. Counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that suit was misconceived as the tenant was not made a party to the suit and the Corporation only took possession of the suit property in recognization of the statutory right under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act. Counsel contended that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant corporation and as such the suit was liable to be dismissed. Counsel contends that the suit filed by the plaintiff was based on collusion with Anant Ram who was the defaulter of the appellant Corporation. 8. Per contra ld. counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submitted that it was an admitted position that property was in occupation of appellant corporation from 01.08.1984 and hence they were liable to pay rent for the period of their occupation. He also drew attention towards various documents exhibited by the plaintiff wherein liability to pay rent was admitted by the defendant corporation and also relied upon extract taken from circular No. 23 FR/HO/Gen .77 dated 07.10.1987 (Ex.10) and supported the order passed by the ld. trial court. 9. I have heard the ld. counsel for the parties and carefully perused the material available on record. It would be appropriate to quote the extract taken from circular no. F23 FR/HO/Gen .77 dated 07.10.1987. “Extract Taken From Circular No. F 23FR/HO/GEN.77 DATED 7.10.87 Sub: Payment of Rent in cases where fixed assets after take over were stored at rented premises. In continuation of Circular No. F23 FR/HO/Gen.77 dated 03.09.87 regarding storage of fixed assets of the unit taken into possession which were located in rental premises, I am to inform you that the matter regarding payment of rent has been reviewed and it has been decided that from the date of hiring of rented premises by the corporation to the date of vacation of the premise, the corporation will pay rent to the owner of the premises on behalf of original borrower by debiting the payment of rent to the loan a/cs. But before releasing payment to the owner of the premises, the Branch Manager will comply with all relevant provisions of FR P& G and issued in this regard from time to time. There is no problem in the payment of rent where the premises have been hired by the corporation. However in other cases where the premises are hired by the borrower or after taking over possession of the fixed assets the fixed assets are kept in the same premises, before releasing payment, the Branch Manager will ensure that:- (i) A documentary proof about the agreed rent between the borrower and the land lord is also obtained. (ii) The rent is paid only for the period for which the premises have been hired by the corporation i.e. the period upto which the fixed assets are kept in such premises during possession period. It is also advised that necessary action if not taken so far in accordance with the circular dated 3.9.87 referred to above taken now and by the end of the next month, all the rented premises must be vacated.” 10. It is an admitted position that possession of the suit property was taken by the appellant on 01.08.1985. A bare perusal of the above circular makes it clear that if the corporation takes over fixed assets of a defaulter which were stored in a rented premises then Rajasthan Financial Corporation would pay the rent and the same may be claimed from the original borrower by debating the payment of rent to the loan account. Above extract of circular which was produced as Exhibit-10 in the suit prima facie fastens liability of payment of rent on the Appellant Corporation. 11. Apart from the same Section 76 (c) of the Transfer of Property Act reproduced herein below also fixed liability of a mortgagee in possession. 76. Above extract of circular which was produced as Exhibit-10 in the suit prima facie fastens liability of payment of rent on the Appellant Corporation. 11. Apart from the same Section 76 (c) of the Transfer of Property Act reproduced herein below also fixed liability of a mortgagee in possession. 76. “Liabilities of mortgagee in possession-When, during the continuance of the mortgage, the mortgagee takes possession of the mortgaged property.- (a) He must manage the property as a person of ordinary prudence would manage it if it were his own; (b) He must use his best endeavours to collect the rents and profits thereof; (c) He must, in the absence of a contract to the contrary, out of the income of the property, pay the Government revenue, all other charges of a public nature 1[and all rent] accruing due in respect thereof during such possession, and any arrears of rent in default of payment of which the property may be summarily sold;” 12. As far as quantum of arrears is concerned the same can also be easily assessed from the obtaining facts as it is an admitted position that possession of the rent premises were taken by the appellant corporation on 01.08.1985. It has not been denied by the corporation that rent was not Rs. 900/- per month. Learned trial court has only allowed arrears amounting to Rs. 32,400/- for a period of three years (i.e. 01.03.1986 to 28.02.1989) prior to the institution of the suit taking into account the provisions of Limitation Act and this court concurs with such conclusion drawn by the trial court. 13. Insofar as the contention of the appellant regarding there being no privity of contract between the appellant and respondent is concerned the same being without force is liable to be rejected. Apart from the above quoted extract and circular issued by the appellant itself, referred to herein before & Section 76 (c) of the Transfer of Property Act also fastens such liability on the Appellant Corporation and the appellant who was using Respondent’s premises cannot escape from such liability. 14. In so far as the contention with respect to non presence of the tenant Anant Ram is concerned the same also being meritless is of no aid to the Appellant. The Respondent instituted a suit against such Anant Ram which was decreed on 18.02.1987 prior to the institution of the instant suit. 14. In so far as the contention with respect to non presence of the tenant Anant Ram is concerned the same also being meritless is of no aid to the Appellant. The Respondent instituted a suit against such Anant Ram which was decreed on 18.02.1987 prior to the institution of the instant suit. The certified copy of such judgment was already on record as Ex.2 in the Trial Court and the same was not disputed by the appellant. Merely raising an omnibus plea regarding non joinder of Anant Ram, without elaborating as to why & how his ++-presence was necessary, in the suit, is of no aid to the defendant appellant. 15. Further the defendant has not led any oral or documentary evidence in support of its case nor put any material suggestion during cross examination of PW_1 Ramkaran husband and power of attorney holder of the plaintiff respondent. Thus from the cumulative assessment of the above facts this Court is unable to find any error or perversity in the impugned judgment and decree and the appeal being devoid on merits is hereby dismissed. However, the appellant is at liberty to recover such amount from Mr. Anant Ram in any proceedings pending between the appellant corporation and Mr. Anant Ram or recover the same from Anant Ram in accordance with law. 16. Accordingly the appeal is dismissed with no order as to cost.