1987 Supreme(Del) 345
High Court Of Delhi
PURAN CHAND AND COMPANY - Appellant
Versus
GANESH LAL TARA CHAND - Respondent
Election 3 of 1977
Decided On : 09/11/1987
ANIL KHER, ARUN MOHAN, B.AGRAWAL, Bikram Singh, L.R.GUPTA, O.N.Vohra, P.C.Khanna, P.S.Saxena, Reva Khetrapal
The exception to the general rule that a tenant inducted by a mortgagee in possession cannot claim the benefit of the protection afforded by the Rent Control Legislation after the redemption of the mortgage, is only applicable to agricultural leases and not to urban property.
Headnote:
RENT CONTROL - TENANCY - MORTGAGEE IN POSSESSION - LEASE - REDEMPTION - PROTECTION - APPLICABILITY OF RENT CONTROL ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Whether a tenant inducted by a mortgagee in possession can claim the benefit of the protection afforded by the Rent Control Legislation after the redemption of the mortgage?
Finding of the Court:
The general rule is that every subordinate interest must perish with the superior interest on which it is dependent. A mortgagee in possession may grant a lease but he cannot create a lease of the mortgaged property which may ensure beyond the termination of his own interest as a mortgagee unless he has been empowered to do so under the mortgage contract. The relationship of landlord and tenant between the mortgagee in possession and his tenant, comes to an end on redemption unless, the relationship is agreed by the mortgagor or afresh relationship is recreated.
Issues: Whether a tenant inducted by a mortgagee in possession can claim the benefit of the protection afforded by the Rent Control Legislation after the redemption of the mortgage?
Ratio Decidendi: The exception to the general rule that a tenant inducted by a mortgagee in possession cannot claim the benefit of the protection afforded by the Rent Control Legislation after the redemption of the mortgage, is only applicable to agricultural leases and not to urban property.
Final Decision: The tenant, inducted by a mortgagee in possession cannot claim the benefit of the protection afforded by the Rent Control Legislation after the redemption of the mortgage, unless the mortgagor had permitted the mortgagee to induct a tenant even beyond the term of the mortgage or has concurred to the creation of the lease or has adopted it.
( 1 ) "whether a tenant inducted by a mortgagee in possession can claim the benefit of the protection afforded by the Rent Control Legislation after,the redemption of the mortgage ? Is the question which has been referred to this Full Bench for decision.
( 2 ) IN Amar Prakash and Another v. Om Prakash Execution Case No. 83/73 decided on May 10, 1974 (1), a learned single Judge had held that the mortgagee in possession could not transfer a boter title than he himself had. He could not create an interest in the mortgaged property which may enure beyond the termination of the interest as mortgagee. The tenancy created by the mortgagee terminates with the extinction of the mortgage Right of mating prudent management was co-terminus with his mortgagee rights. The tenant of the mortgagee in possession was little to vacate the mortgaged property on redemption. The decision was upheld in appeal by a Division Bench of this Court in Gurhachan Singh v. Amar Prakasi and others (EFA (OS) 6/74) decided on January 27, 1975 (2 ). However, in Tara Chard and Another, v. Ganga Ram and others (Ex. Case No. 28/69 decided on March 10, 1977 (3), out of which this reference has arisen same learned single Judge who decided Amar Prakash s case without notice his own earlier judgment and the Division Bench decision upholding the said judgment, took a contrary view. While the appeal against the said decision was pending disposal, the said decision of the learned single Judge in Tara Chard s case was noticed and approved by a Division Bench of this Court in Rameshwar Das etc. v. Prem Narain Aggarwal and another (S F. A. (OS) 4178) linked with E. F. A. 7, 8 and 9 of 1978) decided on 21-12-1979 (4 ). The Division Bench at the time of hearing the appeal against the judgment in Tara Chand s case noticed the said two conflicting D. B. decisions. and consequently, referred the above mentioned question of law for decision by a larger Bench to resolve the conflict. This is how the matter has come before us.
( 3 ) OWNERSHIP denoted the relation between a person and the property forming subject matter of ownership, Ownership has the characteristic of being in determinate induration. It consists of a complex of rights such as the Tight of possession, right of exclsive use and enjoyment, right of destruction and alienation These rights are conceived not as separately existing but as merged in one general right of ownership. Nevertheless these are divisable to some extent. One or more of the fasciculus of rights conning ownership may be detached.
( 4 ) ONE of the instances where a partial transfer of ownership rights comes into existence is where the owner creates a mortgagee. "a mortgagee is the transfer of an interest in specific immovable property for the purpose of securing the payment of money advanced or to be advanced byway of loan. an existing or future debt, or the performance of an engagement which may given rise to a pecuniary liabjlity" "where the mortgagor delivers possession or expressly or by impliction binds himself to deliver possession of the mortgaged property to the mortgagee and authorizes him to retain such possession until payment of the mortgage-money,and to receive the rents and profits accruing from the property or any part of such rents and profits and to appropriate the same in lieu of interest, or in payment of the mortgage-money, or partly in lieu of interest or partly in payment of mortgage-money, the transaction is called an usu- fructuary mortgage and the mortgagee an usfructuary mortgagee. (See Section 58 of the Transferor of Property Act ). The usufructuary mortgage is, thus, a transfer of some interests in the specific immovable property. Distinguished from a sale, where of the rights of ownership which the transfetor has pass to the transferee, in an unufructuary mortgage only some of the ownership rights are transfecred and the rest remain with the mortgagor. What is transfered is the right to get the mortgage prope