Upon redemption of a mortgage, the old status of a tenant should revive, based on established legal principles and exceptions to the general rule.

1. Learned counsel for the parties heard.

Petition admitted.

Taken up for final disposal.

2. Before dealing with the legal issue which has been raised in this petition, it would be apt to notice the relationship of the parties.

3. One Chanar Singh was a co-owner with Ram Singh. Ram Singh made a selection of the land under Big Landed Estated Abolition Act of Samvat 2007. This selection was regarding 183 kanals of land. There is no dispute regarding this. Charan Singh has since died He was represented by his widow. The widow has also died. She is represented by respondents No. 1 and 2.

4. The further fact which is not disputed is that before 1957, the present petitioner was a tenant on the land. In 1957, a mortgage is said to have been created in favour of the present petitioner. With a view to redeem this mortgage, a petition was preferred in terms of Section 10 of the Jammu and Kashmir Agrarian Reforms Act of 1976. This petition stands allowed. An order of resumption has been passed. It is this order which is the subject matter of challenge in this petition.

5. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the redemption of the mortgage, the old status of the petitioner as tenant should revive, it is submitted that this aspect of the matter was not taken note of by the revenue authorities.

6. It be seen that the legal position is clear. A person in possession as a tenant is well within his rights to contend that in case he becomes a mortgagee and the mortgage is redeemed, then his old status as a tenant should revive, so far as the legal position of the tenant of a mortgagee is concerned, it is now well settled that a tenant of the mortgage ceases to be a tenant on the redemption of the mortgage and does not become the tenant of the mortgagor. See in this connection the decisions of the Supreme Court in:

i/ Mahabir Gope Vs. Harbas Narain Singh, AIR 1952 SC 805.

ii/ Harihar Prasad Singh Vs. Deonarain Prasad, AIR 1956 SC 805

iii/ Asa Ram Vs. Ram Kali, AIR 1958 SC 183; and

iv/ Prabhu Vs. Ramdeo, AIR 1966 SC 1721.

7. The reason for this rule, as stated by T.L. Venkatarama Aiyer, J. in Asa Ram™s case AIR 1958 SC 183 is as follows:

The law undoubtedly is that no person can transfer property so as to confer on the transferee a title better than what he possesses. Therefore, any transfer of the property mortgaged by the mortgage must cease when the mortgage is redeemed.

8. However, there are certain exception to this general rule, and they are:

(a) if in the mortgage deed, it is provided that the mortgagee could induct a tenant beyond the term of the mortgage and if such a tenant is inducted on redemption, his tenancy will not come to an end. As a necessary corollary, after redemption, he will be the tenant of the mortgagor; and the mortgagor will be only entitled to symbolical possession on redemption;

(b) that the tenant of the mortgagor, prior to the mortgage, continues to be his tenant even after the redemption of the mortgage, if during the currency of the mortgage, he attorns to the mortgage, or in, other words continues to be a tenant under the mortgagee. Though ceasing to be a tenant of the mortgagor during the currency of the mortgagee he, after redemption, becomes a tenant of the mortgagor, provided he does not given up his tenancy, in such a case, his tenancy under the mortgagor remains in abeyance during the currency of the mortgage;

(c) that in the case of tenants of agricultural land, a tenant inducted by the mortgagee would be the tenant of the mortgagor even after the mortgagor even after the redemption of the mortgage, provided he has been inducted bona fide and in like manner as a prudent owner of land would have done in the usual course of management. Even in such a case, the operation of the lease cannot extend beyond the period for which it was granted.

9. In the present case, the exceptions chalked out by the Supreme Court in Asa Ram™s case (supra), would be applicable. If the tenant was indu

Click Here to Read the rest of this document