A tenant inducted into possession by a usufructuary mortgagee does not retain his status as a tenant after the redemption of the mortgage and is not entitled to the protection of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950.

K. S. SIDHU, J.

( 1 ) THE only point which falls for determination in the four connected petitions for revision under Section 115 C. P. C. listed above, is whether a tenant inducted into possession by a usufructuary mortgagee retains his status as a tenant even after the redemption of mortgage by the mortgagor and is as such, entitled to the protection of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction Act, 1950. It has arisen in the following circumstances.

( 2 ) KAPOOR Chand and others (respondents 1 to 10 herein), the mortgagors, hereinafter collectively called the decree-holder, obtained a final decree in a suit for redemption against Ghisilal and others (respondents 11 to 13 herein), hereinafter called the mortgagees, in respect of a building, situate in Jaipur city, on March 6, 1982. Between 1959 and 1973, when the mortgage was still continuing, the mortgagees inducted into possession from time to time Ramchandra (petitioner in C. R. No. 307 o 1982), Janwar Mal (petitioner in C. R. No. 309 of 1982), Abdul Rashid (petitioner in C. R. No. 308/1982) and Gauri Shankar (petitioner in C. R. No. 305 of 1982), as respective tenants, into foot different portions of this building at different monthly rates of rent. The decree-holder applied for execution of the decree and obtained from the executing court a warrant to its Nazir directing him to put the decree-holder in possession of the property in dispute, Apprehending that they might be evicted from their respective portions in execution of the final decree tor redemp-tion against the mortgagees (i. e. the petitioners lessors) the petitioners approached the executing court and made four separate applications between May 15 and 17, 1982, purporting to do so under Section 151 C. P. C. , raising identical pleas to the effect that the mortgagees had lawfully let out the premises to them and that being tenants they were not liable to be evicted except in accordance with a decree or order passed by the Court under Section 13 of the Rajas than Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter to be referred to as the Act. They pleaded that although they had alt been inducted into possession of their respective tenements as tenants by the mortgagees prior to the institution of the suit tor redemption by the mortgagors, the latter did not im-plead them as parties to the suit, and as such they cannot be evicted in execu- tion of the final decree obtained by the mortgagers in that suit.

( 3 ) THE decree holder contested these applications and pleaded that the petitioners tenancies were extinguished with the redemption of the mortgage and that therefore the decree-holder was entitled to delivery of actual possession under Oder 21 Rule 55 C. P. C.

( 4 ) BY its order, dated July 1, 82 the ex-ecuting court held, relying on authorities, that a lease granted by a usufructuary mortgagee of an urban building must come to an end at the redemption of the mortgage and that therefore the peti-TIONERS had no legal justification for re-sisting the actual delivery of possession of the decretal property to the decree holder. Consequently, the executing court dismissed the petitioners application under Section 151 C. P. C. , mentioned above.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by the order of dismis-sal of their applications, the petitioners filed four separate petitions of revision which are proposed to be disposed of by this judgment.

( 6 ) AFTER hearing both sides and perus-ing the record, I am of opinion that the executing court has taken correct view of law in holding that the tenancies of the petitioners which were created by the mortgagees during the continuance of the usufructuary mortgage were ex-tinguished when the mortgagors ob-tained the final decree for redemption and that therefore the petitioners cannot legitimately claim the legal status of tenant entitled to the protection of Section 13 of the Act. This view is based on authorities, including those of the Supreme Court, which w