Back
2025 Supreme(Raj) 1911
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI, J.
Jitendra Saxena S/o Dinesh Chand - Appellant
Versus
Mohan Lal S/o Budha Mal - Respondent
S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 163/2000
Decided on : 23-07-2025
For the Appellant : Mr. Ran Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent: None Present
A tenant of a mortgagee loses tenancy rights upon mortgage redemption and cannot claim protection under tenancy laws against the mortgagor.
Headnote:(A) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - Section 76 - Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 - Tenancy rights after mortgage redemption - Tenant of the mortgagee does not retain rights after mortgage redemption; mortgagee cannot create interests beyond their own. (Paras 15, 17)
(B) Tenant protection - Tenant of mortgagee not entitled to protection of Rent Act against mortgagor after redemption.
(C) Prudent management - Mortgagee letting property is not a prudent act. (Paras 15, 17)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was a tenant under a mortgagee of the mortgaged property. A decree of eviction was issued against the appellant despite a pending regular eviction suit.
Issues: (i) Whether the eviction decree is valid despite the sale of the property by the deceased plaintiff to defendant and ongoing eviction suits? (ii) Can eviction be justified under circumstances of legal collusion? (iii) Was there misjoinder of cause of action?
Findings of Court:
The lease given by the mortgagee terminated upon redemption; the mortgagor is entitled to recover possession. Issues regarding the validity of the eviction decree were dismissed, affirming the mortgagor's rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that after redemption of the mortgage, tenant rights cease, and the tenant cannot seek protection under the Rent Act against the mortgagor; the mortgagee's act of leasing was not prudent.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
CHANDRA PRAKASH SHRIMALI, J.
vihykFkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls ;g flfoy f}rh; vihy /kkjk 100 flfoy izfØ;k lafgrk ds varxZr fo}ku vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] ckanhdqbZ] ftyk nkSlk }kjk flfoy vihy la[;k 37@1998 esa ikfjr vkyksP; fu.kZ; fnukad 17-07-1999 ls O;fFkr gksdj izLrqr dh gS] ftlds }kjk fo}ku flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼o-[k-½] caknhdqbZ] ftyk nkSlk }kjk nhokuh izdj.k la[;k 11@1986 esa ikfjr vkyksP; fu.kZ; o fMØh fnukad 17-10-1997 dks iq"V djrs gq, vihykFkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls izLrqr vihy dks [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj vihykFkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k dh vksj ls ;g flfoy f}rh; vihy fo}ku flfoy U;k;k/kh'k ¼o-[k-½] caknhdqbZ] ftyk nkSlk }kjk flfoy izdj.k la[;k 11@1986 esa ikfjr vkyksP; fu.kZ; o fMØh fnukad 17-10-1997 o vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k] ckanhdqbZ] ftyk nkSlk }kjk flfoy fu;fer vihy la[;k 37@1998 esa ikfjr vkyksP; fu.kZ; fnukad 17-07-1999 dks vikLr djus gsrq vihy esa vafdr vk/kkjksa ij izLrqr dh x;h gSA
vihy ij vihykFkhZx.k@izfroknhx.k ds fo}ku vfHkHkk"kd dks lquk x;k rFkk i=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA
izR;FkhZx.k@oknhx.k uksfVl rkehy ds ckotwn vuqifLFkr gSaA
bl izdj.k esa vihykFkhZx.k dh vihy esa vfadr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij fuEufyf[kr lkjHkrw iz'u mRiUu gksrs gSa] ftudh fojpuk U;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 01-06-2000 dks fuEu izdkj dh x;h%&
(i) Whether the impugned judgment and decrees ame are sustainable in law despite the fact that deceased plaintiff had sold the shop in question to defendant No.1, who had let out the same to appellant, of which regular suit for eviction had been filed earlier and still pending?
(ii) Whether the impugned judgment and decrees are sustainable in law when the defendant No.1 failed to obtain the decree of eviction in regular suit for eviction and he had collusion with the plaintiff by admitting his case that the suit property is a mortgage property?. As a result of which the legal rights of appellant as tenant had been defeated by granting the decree of eviction against the appellant in furtherance the decree of redemption of mortgage?
(iii) Whether the impugned judgment and decrees are sustainable in law when the regular suit for eviction was already pending wherein both the plaintiff and defendant No.1 are party then the present suit for redemption of mortgage & eviction by appellant could be filed? In such situation there had been misjoinder of cause of action and the decree of eviction could not have been passed in the present suit in the garb of suit for redemption of mortgage?
orZeku izdj.k ds laf{kIr rF; bl izdkj gSa fd izR;FkhZx.k@oknhx.k us ,d okn vihykFkhZx.k lfgr vU; izfroknhx.k ds fo:) bl vk'k; dk izLrqr fd;k fd oknh ¼e`rd½ cq)key nthZfxjh dk dke djrk Fkk vkSj izfroknh 'kjhQqygd futh vLirky pykrk Fkk vkSj fnus'k pan futh O;kikj djrk FkkA oknh la[;k 1@1 yxk;r 1@5 e`rd oknh cq)key ds okfjlku gSaA e`rd cq)kjke oknh us oknxzLr iq[rk nqdku fnukad 23-12-1968 dks tfj;s iathd`r jguukek ds izfroknh la[;k 1 'kjhQqygd dks jgu fcy dCt djds mlh fnu dCtk ns fn;kA okni= esa vafdr rF;ksa ds vuqlkj e`rd oknh cq)key us tfj;s vf/koDrk 'kjhQqygd dks uksfVl fn;k fd og 2500@& :i;s jgu dh jkf'k vnk;xh djus dks rS;kj o rRij gS vkSj mDr :i;s oknh ds vf/koDrk ds dk;kZy; esa vkdj mDr jkf'k izkIr dj tk;nkn dk dCtk lEHkyk nsA uksfVl izkfIr ds i'pkr izfroknh la[;k 1 us tk;nkn dk dCtk e`rd oknh dks ugha lEHkyk;k] tcfd e`rd cq)key jde vnk;xh ds fy, iw.kZr% rRij jgkA okni= esa ;g Hkh rF; lkeus vk;s gSa fd izfroknh 'kjhQqygd us mDr nqdku e`rd izfroknh fnus'k pan lDlSuk dks fdjk;s ij ns nhA tc e`rd oknh cq)key us jgu jkf'k izkIr dj oknxzLr nqdku dk dCtk nsus dk uksfVl 'kjhQqygd dks fn;k rks 'kjhQqygd] ftlus oknxLr nqdku o"kZ 1970 esa e`rd izfroknh fnus'k pan lDlSuk dks fdjk;s ij ns nh Fkh] mls fnukad 10-08-1979 dks nqdku [kkyh djus dk uksfVl fn;kA ftl ij fdjk;snkj fnus'k pan }kjk nqdku [kkyh ugh djus ij mlds fo:) 'kjhQqygd us jktLFkku ifjlj ¼fdjk;k ,oa csn[kyh fu;a=.k½ vf/kfu;e ds varxZr csn[kyh dk okn l{ke U;k;ky; esa izLrqr dj fn;kA rRi'pkr e`rd oknh cq)key dh vksj ls oknxzLr ifjlj [kkyh djus ds laca/k esa okn 'kjhQqygd o fnus'k pan
