A suit for recovery of rent on the basis of a rent-note executed by the mortgagor in favor of the mortgagee is maintainable in the Court of Small Cause Judge and the Madhya Bharat Interest Act, 1956 does not apply to such a suit.

( 1 ) THIS revision arises out o a Small Cause Suit. The plaintiff brought a suit for the recovery of Rs. 208/10/6 as arrears of rent on the basis, of a rent-note executed by the defendant on 19-11-54 and exhibited as Ex. P. . 1.

( 2 ) IT appears that the house, about the rent of which this suit was filed, belonged to the defendant. , who had mortgaged it to the plaintiff and thereafter taken a lease of the same from the plaintiff. The suit was resisted on the ground that since it is a claim arising out of a mortgage-deed and the rent is by way of interest on the mortgage, therefore the Small Cause Court had no jurisdiction. This contention was rejected by the trial Court. The Court instead of passing a decree for the rent claimed, calculated interest on the mortgaged-money at 6 per cent, and decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 46-2-6 only. Against this decision, the plaintiff has filed this revision. 2. Two questions arise for consideration; One, whether the plaintiff can bring a suit on the rentnote in the Court of Small Cause Judge? two, whether the Court could reduce the amount of rent in the manner in which it has done?

( 3 ) WITH regard to the first question, the learned counsel for the opposite party was unable to show any authority on the point and the three cases, he has cited nanekeshwar Prasad v. Nand Gopal Ram, AIR 1943 Pat 282 (A); Ram Narain Pasi v. Sukhi-Tiwari, AIR 1957 Pat 24 (B) and Harilal Bhagwanji v. Shastri Hemshanker umiya Shanker, AIR 1958 Bom 8 (C), do not discuss the point at all. His contention however is that because the rent-note was executed in lieu of interest on the mortgage, therefore the claim for arrears of rent is in fact a claim arising out of a mortgage. This argument is contrary to the cases cited above, because in air 1958 Bom 8 (C), it has been said that a decree for rent on the footing that it really represented interest payable by the defendant can be given. Similarly AIR 1943 Pat-282 (A), does not say that such no suit cannot be filed In fact AIR 1943 pat 282 (A) is wholly irrelevant because what is considered in it is the effect of order 34, Rule 14, C. P. Code, which is quite a different matter.

( 4 ) IN AIR 1957 Pat 24 (B), Prasad J. has taken the view that where mortgage and kirayanama form part of one transaction, the mortgagor cannot be described as a tenant and as such no relationship of landlord and tenant is created thereby. But with great respect, I must point out that in spite of this,. Prasad J. later on in the very judgment has held that the mortgagee was entitled to sue for the arrears of his rent. If what he had observed earlier is correct namely, that no relationship of the landlord and the tenant is created between the parties, then I fail to understand how a suit for arrears of rent was maintainable. I have no doubt that the dictum of Prasad J. requires re-consideration.

( 5 ) CONSIDERING the case on merits, I do not see any reason why document Ex. P. 1 does not create the relationship of a landlord and a tenant. The elementary rule of interpretation is that a document should be construed according to its plain words and that the words must be interpreted in their natural and ordinary sense. If a person has created a usufructuary mortgage, then it means that he has given possession of the property to the mortgagee. In the circumstances the mortgagee can give a lease of the property either to the mortgagor or to any third person for the matter of that. And when a mortgagee give a lease cither to third person or to the mortgagor, it is certainly, a new relation that has been created. Without prejudice to their former relationship of a mortgagor and a mortgagee, a new relation was also created by the lease. If the lease fails to create the relation of a landlord and a tenant, then the rent-note is a mere scrap of paper, having no value. No reason has been assigned why it should fail to create tenancy. Let vis further consider the position. If the mortgagee