JUDGMENT :

1. Appellants-defendants have filed this second appeal invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 100 CPC assailing the judgment and decree dated 26.08.2008 in Appeal No.22/2006 passed by the Additional District Judge, Laxmangarh, Alwar affriming the judgment and decree for eviction and recovery of rent dated 31.07.2006 in Civil Suit No.76/2002 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kathumar, District Alwar.

2. The dispute between parties is in relation to an immovable property comprising double storey haveli and a nohra situated at town Kathumar, District Alwar. The respondent No.1 is plaintiff. Both appellants and resondent No.2 are defendants No.1, 2 and 3 before the trial court. The respondents No.3 to 13 were defendants No.4 to 14 before the trial court. The suit has been contested by defendants No.1 and 2 only, who are appellants herein. The status of parties shall be referred hereinafter in the manner as they were called before the trial court.

3. The relevant facts of the case may be recapitulated as under:

(3.1) Plaintiff filed a civil suit claiming possession and rent of the suit property against the defendants, on 15.11.2002. It has been averred that defendants No.1, 2 and 3 are relatives of plaintiff to whom the suit property was let out for residential purposes in the year 1975 at the rate of Rs.150/-per month. The tenancy is said to be oral. Later on, from January 1990, rent has enhanced at the rate of Rs.300/-per month. The defendants-tenants paid rent to the plaintiff upto July, 2002, but have committed default from August, 2002 onwards. It has been averred that plaintiff needs the suit property for his sons and family but the defendants No.1, 2 and 3 are not agreeable to vacate and hand over the suit property to the plaintiff.

(3.2) Plaintiff claimed to terminate the tenancy of defendants by issuing a registered notice dated 18.10.2002, asking defendants to vacate the suit property and pay arrears of rent and mesne profits.

(3.3) Plaintiff has stated in the plaint that the suit property was earlier belonging to one Kundan Lal S/o Nand Kishore Khandelwal R/o Kathumar. Intially, Shri Kundan with his eleder son Deen Dayal mortgaged the suit property to Defendants No.2 and 3 for a sum of Rs.3,500/-through registered mortgage deed dated 08.04.1960. It may be noted here that at that time on 08.04.1960, one of the mortgagee appellant-defendant No.2 Mahaveer was minor, hence this deed is void as observed by both courts below. It was averred that mortgagee vacated the possession and this mortgage deed has come to an end after redemption of the mortgaged property which is mentioned in subsequent mortgage deed dated 11.06.1973, also.

(3.4) Plaintiff averred that thereafter, Kundan Lal passed away and his three sons, namely, Ramesh Chand, Shiv Dayal and Deen Dayal, mortgaged the suit property in favour of plaintiff for a sum of Rs.6,000/-through registered mortgage deed dated 11.06.1973, and hand over the possession of the suit property to plaintiff. In this mortgage deed dated 11.06.1973, it clearly mentioned of previous mortgage deed dated 08.04.1960 has come to an end. The mortgagors do not dispute this fact. This mortgage deed dated 11.06.1973 was made for a period of eight years. It was agreed between parties that in case mortgagors would remain failed to pay the mortgaged money and to get redeem the mortgaged property within a period of eight years, the property shall be treated to be released in favour of mortgagee, who is the plaintiff. The plaintiff let out the mortgaged property to defendant Nos.1 to 3, in the year 1975 and handed over the possesssion to them. Thereafter, the mortgagors instituted a civil suit on 19.05.1989 for redemption of mortgage and possession, but mortgaged money was not paid and mortgaged properties never redeemed and suit was dismissed in default on 23.01.2001. As per terms of mortgage deed, plaintiff became owner of the mortgaged properties, to which mort