ORDER

1. The short question involved in this appeal is whether the High Court was justified in upholding the order of the Additional District Judge No. VI, Jaipur disallowing an application filed by the appellant under Order XXXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Disagreeing with the Additional Civil Judge, Jaipur City, the learned Additional District Judge held that the appellant who as plaintiff claims to be mortgages tenant had no prima facie case for the grant of temporary injunction after redemption of the mortgage and therefore cannot claim the protection of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950. As there was a divergence of opinion between different Benches of the High Court, a learned Single Judge referred the question to a Full Bench. We have gone through the decision{1. Devkinandan v. Roshan Lal, AIR 1985 Raj 11 : 1984 Raj LR 709 : 1984 WLN 647} of the Full Bench and also heard learned counsel for the appellant at quite some length.

2. In our opinion, the proper course to adopt is to leave the question open to be determined in the suit. The Full Bench has held that a tenant inducted by the mortgage with possession ceases to be a tenant