1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22nd January, 1991 of 4th Additional District Judge, Sangli in Regular Civil Appeal No.181 of 1986, which was preferred against the judgment and decree dated 28th October, 1985 passed by the 2nd Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli in Regular Civil Suit No. 428 of 1982.

2. The said suit was filed by the original Respondent, Shankar Krishna Bhagat-Patil, for redemption of mortgage and for getting possession of the suit premises. It was his case that he was in need of money and the Appellant offered to pay him the amount of Rs.1500/-, he executed the mortgage by conditional sale of the suit premises in favour of the Appellant on 24th December, 1973. The mortgage was to be redeemed after the expiry of five years therefrom and the possession was to be taken back by the Respondent. Accordingly, after the expiry of five years, the Respondent demanded the possession and redemption of the mortgage. The Appellant, however, avoided to do so. Hence, the Respondent issued a notice to him on 11th August, 1982, which was served on the Appellant on 12th August, 1982. The Appellant failed to comply therewith or even to give reply to the said notice and hence, the suit was filed.

3. This suit was resisted by the Appellant admitting the execution of the mortgage deed and also showing his readiness for redemption of the said mortgage. However, a specific contention was raised by the Appellant in the written statement at Exhibit-14 that he has been in possession of the suit premises as a tenant since 1968 at the rent of Rs.10/- per month. He was running grocery shop therein. During subsistence of the said tenancy, the mortgage deed was executed and his possession was continued as a mortgagee. Now after the redemption of the mortgage, his tenancy stands revived and hence, he is entitled to remain in possession of the suit premises as a tenant. Therefore, though the decree of redemption of the mortgage can be passed, the Respondent cannot be entitled for possession of the suit premises. The Appellant had also contended inter-alia that on the basis of the consent deed executed by the Respondent on 25th October, 1974, he has carried out repairs of the said premises by incurring the expenses of Rs.2985/- and he is entitled to get that amount along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.

4. On the basis of these respective pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the requisite issues and was pleased to decree the suit for possession, holding that the Appellant has failed to prove his plea of tenancy. However, at the same time, the trial Court also directed the Respondent to pay to the Appellant the amount of Rs.1200/- towards the repair expenses and Rs.1500/- towards the mortgage charges.

5. The First Appellate Court has confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court, as regards redemption of the mortgage and for possession of the suit premises. However, it has enhanced the repair charged from Rs.1200/- to Rs.2085/-.

6. This concurrent finding of fact arrived at by the trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court is challenged in this Second Appeal. This Second Appeal is admitted on following substantial questions of law as framed in ground No.(a) to (c) of the Appeal Memo.

(a) Having accepted the fact that Appellant-Defendant was already in possession of the suit property for a period of more than five years, even prior to the mortgage-deed, and having accepted the fact that the rent note at Ex-29 and consent deed at Ex-22 have been already proved, whether the finding that there was no tenancy prior to the mortgage, existed between the parties, is correct and legal?

(b) Having established the tenancy, whether such tenancy revives after the redemption of mortgage and in that case whether the tenancy in favour of the Appellant-Defendant has revived?

(c) If the tenancy of the Appellant-Defendant has been so revived after, the redemption of the mortgage, whe