1987 Supreme(SC) 717

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI AND S. NATARAJAN, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 47 (N) of 1978, D/- 9-9-1987.
Jadavji Purshottam, Appellant
Versus
Dhami Navnitbhai Amaratlal and others, Respondents.

Headnote:

Saurashtra Rent Control Act, 1951 - House Rates Control Act,1947 - Rent Act,1977 - Bombay Rent Act, 1999 - Transfer of Property Act, 1882 – Section 76(a) ,76, 98 - Gujarat Act, 1964 - Tenant - Lease Deed - Mortgage Property - Tenant vacated portion occupied by him - Thereafter mortgagee inducted appellant as a tenant of ground floor for a period of one year on a monthly rent of Rs. 125/ - Lease deed, however, came to be executed only after one year - Mortgagee issued a notice to appellant terminating tenancy and calling upon him to surrender possession on ground he had failed to pay rent - Appellant did not surrender possession and instead filed Civil Misc. Application for fixation of standard rent - It is relevant to mention here that governed leases of buildings in Saurashtra region including Bhavnagar - Mortgagee filed Civil Suit against appellant for recovering arrears of rent and possession of leased premises - Whether mortgagors are entitled to dispossess him by reason of redemption of mortgage debt - Whether consent decree and final decree to which mortgagors and mortgagee were alone parties would be binding on appellant - Whether granting of a lease of urban immovable property so as to tie up property beyond term of mortgage was a prudent act or not of mortgagee - Whether mortgagee had authority to give tenancy rights to appellant so as to enable him to claim tenancy rights beyond term of mortgage has got to be determined - Whether his tenancy rights came to be enlarged by tenancy legislation after he was put in possession by mortgagee - Whether tenancy created in his favour by mortgagee had concurrence of mortgagors so as to entitle appellant to claim tenancy rights even after redemption of mortgage - Whether lease granted to appellant by mortgagee had approval or concurrence of mortgagors so as to entitle appellant to claim tenancy rights even as against mortgagors after they had redeemed mortgage - Whether mortgagors are entitled to dispossess him by reason of redemption of mortgage debt - Whether consent decree and final decree to which mortgagors and mortgagee were alone parties would be binding on appellant – Held, Mortgagors nor mortgagee could have anticipated a tenancy legislation like Saurashtra being enacted by Government so as to enlarge rights of tenants - In such circumstances appellant cannot legitimately contend that mortgagors had given an unrestricted power to mortgagee to create a tenancy for any length of time and are therefore bound to accept lease transaction even after redemption of mortgage deed - Secondly even without reference to absence of any tenancy legislation when mortgage deed came to be executed, there are a host of materials in mortgage deed itself to show that permission given to mortgagee to induct tenants was of a very limited and qualified nature - Mortgagors had not empowered mortgagee to create a lease which would be binding on them after redemption of mortgage and since appellants rights, as a tenant, did not become enlarged by means of any Tenancy legislation which came to be enacted after lease was granted, appellant can claim tenancy rights only as against his landlord viz. mortgagee and not against mortgagors - As soon as mortgagees rights became extinguished by redemption of mortgage, neither he nor anyone inducted by him has a right to be in possession of mortgage property - Consequently, mortgagors were entitled to seek ejectment of mortgagee and tenant inducted by him - Appellant, had no independent rights and hence it was not necessary that he should have been made a party to suit filed by mortgagee or execution application taken out by mortgagors after redemption of mortgage - His position was akin to that of a sub-tenant whose rights were conterminous with those of tenant himself - As such execution application taken against mortgagee will be binding on appellant - Having no independent rights of his own, appellant cannot contend that decrees and execution application are not binding on him as he was not made a party to proceedings – Appeal Dismissed.