KAN SINGH, J.—The question falling for consideration in the second appeal before us is whether a tenant inducted on the mortgaged property by a mortgagee in possession could invoke the protection of sec. 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter to be referred as the "Act"., as against the mortgagor, after the latter had redeemed the mortgage and it has arisen in this way:

2. Respondent Shanker Lal had mortgaged his shop situate at Hanumangarh with Dwarkadass by a registered mortgage deed on 14-9-53. In terms of the mortgage Dwarkadass was put in actual possession of the shop. Thereafter he let out the shop to the appellants Ghamandiram & Sohanlal. After some time Shankerlal demanded from Dwarkadass vacant possession of the shop, as he was prepared to pay off the mortgage debt. Dwarka Dass, however, could not do so on the sole ground that the physical possession of the mortgaged shop was not with himself, but with the defendants Ghamandi Ram and Sohanlal. Shankerlal consequently brought the suit against the mortgagee and the tenants in the court of Civil Judge, Hanumangarh, and deposited the mortgage amount in the court. Dwarka Dass, however, did not contest the action, but the present appellants pleaded that the mortgagor was not entitled to evict them on account of the provisions of the Act and they were prepared to attorn to Shanker Lal. The learned Civil Judge held that the appellants were not entitled to the protection of the Act, as with the redemption of the mortgage the rights of the mortgagee came to an end and the appellants who derived title from the mortgagee could not be permitted to continue in possession of the premises. Accordingly, he passed a decree for possession in favour of the mortgagor. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge the appellants went up in appeal to the District Judge, Ganganagar, who dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree of the trial court. This is how the appellants have come to this Court in second appeal.

3. The appeal came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court on 21-8-64. Quite a large number of authorities, both of this Court, as well as of the other High Courts, were cited before the learned Judge, who however felt that the case required consideration by a larger Bench and accordingly he made a reference to a larger Bench which has now come up before us.

4. Before we consider the various cases cited before us, we find it convenient to refer to the salient features of the Act.

5. The Act was passed in the year 1950, to control eviction from, letting of, and rents for, certain premises in the State of Rajasthan. Sec. 3(iii) of the Act defines the term "landlord" to mean "any person who for the time being is receiving or is entitled to receive the rent of any premises, whether on his own account or as an agent, trustee, guardian or receiver for any other person, or who would so receive or be entitled to receive the rent if the premises were let to a tenant; it includes a tenant in relation to sub-tenant." The term "tenant" means "the person by whom rent is, or but for &. contract express or implied would be, payable for any premises and includes any person holding or occupying the premises as a sub-tenant, (or any person continuing in possession after the termination of a tenancy in his favour otherwise than under the provisions of the Act )".

6. Sec. 5 of the Act declares that the rent payable for any premises situated within the areas to which this Act extends for the time being shall, subject to the other provisions thereof, be ordinarily such, as may be agreed upon between the landlord and the tenant.

7. Sec. 13, which is the section under which the protection is claimed by the appellants reads as under (omitting portions which are not relevant): —

"Sec. 13. Eviction of tenants—(1) Notwithstanding any thing contained in any law or contract, no Court shall pass any decree, or make any order, in favour

Click Here to Read the rest of this document