JUDGMENT :

J.C. Shah, J.

In July 1943 Sahi Ram, father of the respondents in this appeal, mortgaged with possession an area of agricultural land in village Dhobi, District Hissar, to secure repayment of Rs. 6,000/-. Lachman Singh the mortgagee inducted the appellants on the lands as his tenants-at-will. After the death of Sahi Ram the respondents redeemed the mortgage on September 1, 1958, and filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, 4th Class, Hissar, for possession of the land against the appellants. The suit was decreed, and the decree was confirmed by the Additional District Judge, Hissar. The appellants then applied to purchase the land in exercise of the right under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (10 of 1953). The Assistant Collector rejected the application. In appeal, the Collector of Hissar reversed that order. The order was confirmed by the Commissioner, Ambala Division.

2. In a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution moved by the respondents, the High Court of Punjab quashed the orders of the Collector and the Commissioner. In the view of the High Court the judgment of the Civil Court was binding between the parties and the appellants could not maintain an application to enforce the right under Section 18 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. An appeal under the Letters Patent against that order was dismissed in limine.

3. Under the general law, a person cannot ordinarily transfer or otherwise confer a better title upon another, than he himself has, and a mortgagee therefore cannot create an interest in the mortgaged property which will enure beyond the termination of his interest as mortgagee. A mortgagee cannot during the subsistence of the mortgage act in a manner detrimental to the mortgagor's interests e.g. by giving a lease which may enable the tenant to acquire permanent occupancy rights in the land, thereby defeating the mortgagor's right to possession : Mahabir Gope and others v. Harbans Narain Singh and others (1952 S.C.R. 775). This decision was approved in Harihar Prasad Singh and another v. Deonarain Parsad and others (1956 S.C.R. 1). But in Asa Ram and another v. Mst. Ram Kali and another (1958 S.C.R. 986), it was pointed out that under Section 76(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, an agricultural lease created by a mortgagee may be binding on the mortgagor even though the mortgage has been redeemed, provided the lease is of such a character that a prudent owner of property would enter into in the usual course of management.

4. In Prabhu v. Ramdeo and others (AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1721), this Court held that the rule that the lease granted by a mortgagee in possession comes to an end on redemption, is subject to certain exceptions. A settlement by a mortgagee in possession with a tenant in the course of prudent management, and the rights arising in favour of a tenant of the mortgagee by statute, based on the nature of the land and possession for the requisite period, may give rise to rights enforceable against the mortgagor after redemption. The Court pointed out that the rights of a tenant inducted by a mortgagee upon land may conceivably be improved by virtue of statutory provisions which may meanwhile have come into operation.

5. Ordinarily, therefore, a tenant inducted in the land by the mortgagee during the subsistence of the mortgage has on redemption of the mortgage, no right to claim to remain in occupation of the land mortgaged, but he may seek to enforce that right if the tenancy is granted by the mortgagee in the ordinary course of management, or pursuant to an express covenant in that behalf, or when by legislation rights are conferred upon such a tenant enforceable against the mortgagor. It was not urged before the High Court that the tenancy rights were granted in pursuance of authority under a covenant in the deed of mortgage or in due course of management by the mortgagee.

6. Counsel for the appellants contended, relying upon certain