The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mortgagee cannot create tenancy rights binding on the mortgagor after redemption, and the tenant must establish the consent of the mortgagor to the creation of tenancy by the mortgagee.

M.M. Kumar, J. - Plaintiff-petitioners have invoked the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity the Code) by filing the present revision petition challenging the order dated 2.2.2002 passed by the Additional District Judge, Sangrur dismissing their appeal which was directed against the order dated 15.6.2001. In his order dated 15.6.2001, the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sunam has declined the prayer of the plaintiff-petitioner for issuing interim directions restraining defendant-respondent No. 2 from demolishing shop Nos. 1 to 6 (which are fully described in the heading of the plaint) and also from dispossessing the plaintiff-petitioners or from interfering in their possession.

2. Brief facts of the case which have led to the filing of the present petition are that defendant-respondent No. 2 (for brevity the mortgagor) mortgaged the suit property to defendant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 i.e. Hindu Sabha High School, Sunam (for brevity the mortgagee). The property was redeemed from the mortgagee by virtue of a judgment and decree of redemption dated 24.1.2001. The mortgagee appears to have inducted the plaintiff-petitioners as tenant in the shops in dispute. After redemption, the plaintiff-petitioners are claiming that they are either tenants of the mortgagor or the mortgagee.

3. The case pleaded by the plaintiff-petitioners is that the mortgagee is owner of the shops in dispute and they have been in possession of shops in dispute as tenants under the mortgagee. The plaintiff-petitioner No. 1 has taken a loan from the State Bank of India., Sunam and is running a PCO/STD in the name and style as Pinki STD in Shop No. 1. He has also claimed that electricity charges are being paid by him. He has also been paying rent and house tax although no rent note has been executed by the owner Hindu Sabha High School, Sunam. Similar averments have been made by plaintiff-petitioner No. 2 asserting that he is running a Chemist shop known as Bansal Medical Hall, Sunam. It is admitted that Hindu Sabha High School, Sunam who is alleged to be owner of the property has not executed any rent note nor issued any receipt for payment of rent. However, it is claimed that the plaintiff-petitioner No. 2 is in possession of the disputed property since long and earlier to his possession their ancestors were in possession. Other plaintiff-petitioners have also raised similar plea claiming possession since the period of their ancestors. It is also claimed that under the provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949 (for brevity, the 1949 Act) the owner of the property the mortgagee is not entitled to get the same vacated and the mortgagor is conniving with the mortgagee. Alongwith the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code seeking protection of possession of the plaintiff-petitioners and restraining mortgagor for forcibly evicting and dispossessing them was also filed.

4. The plaintiff-petitioners failed to persuade the learned trial Court to grant them any interim injunction because it held that the plaintiff-petitioners did not claim to be tenants of the mortgagor. Therefore, the tenant of mortgagee cannot acquire any tenancy right beyond the period of mortgage. The Civil Judge also held that such a tenant after redemption is considered to be a trespasser and no injunction could be granted in favour of such a trespasser against the true owner. the Civil Judge has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Premji Ratasney Shah and others v. Union of India and others, 1994(5) SCC 547. The Civil Judge also did not find any substance in the contention that the mortgagor could seek the eviction of the plaintiff-petitioners only under the provisions of the 1949 Act because they were never tenant of the mortgagor. In this regard, the Civil Court relied on the case of Carona Shoe Co. Ltd. and others v. K.C. Bhaskaran, Nair, AIR 1989 SC 1110. The Civil Judge further held that the