( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the defendant against whom a decree for his ejectment has been passed The mortgagee whose tenant he claimed to be has also filed an appeal (being F. A. 15 of 1963) against the decree for redemption But his appeal is confined only to the costs of the suit awarded against him. However, as both the appeals wise out of the same suit and judgment, the disposal of the instant appeal shall govern the disposal of both the appeals.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff-respondents are the purchasers of equity of redemption from the heirs and legal representatives of the original mortgagor. Shyamlal Kachar, who had mortgaged the properly consisting of 2 1/2 shops, with Harprashad, appellant in the connected appeal, on four different mortgage deeds, and the total amount of the mortgage money was Rs. 10,500. The mortgages carried interest in lieu of rent. The original mortgagor, Shyamlal, failed to pay the rent, with the result that harprashad, mortgagee, brought a civil suit, No. 84 of 1953, and in the execution of its decree, recovered possession of the mortgaged property. Harprashad. mortgagee, inducted two tenants, on monthly tenancy of Rs. 10 and Rs. 17 respectively, and Purshottam, appellant in the instant appeal, is one of them. The plaintiff-respondents filed suit for redemption of the property after giving proper notice, and defendant No. 1. Harprashad, appellant, resisted it on the ground that no tender of the mortgage money was ever made to him and though the plaintiff-respondents are entitled to redemption on payment of the mortgage money and interest, they were not entitled to khas possession, Purshottam, defendant No. 2, and one Rajaram, defendant averred that they could not be evicted being the tenants of the mortgagee, except on any of the grounds provided in the Madhya pradesh Accommodation Control Act. (hereinafter called the Act ).

( 3 ) THE teamed Additional District Judge framed as many as six issues in the suit and came to the conclusion that though the plaintiff-respondents had failed to prove the tender of the mortgage amount of Rs. 10,500 on the dates as alleged in the plaint, yet they were entitled to a mortgage decree for redemption of the mortgaged property on the payment of the mortgage money and interest found due. He also held that the tenants of the mortgagee are liable to be ejected since their tenancies stood terminated with the redemption of the mortgage, and they could not take advantage of the Act. Accordingly, he passed a preliminary decree.

( 4 ) WE heard Shri Motilal Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals, and Shri Patankar, the learned counsel on behalf of the respondents.

( 5 ) WE will first deal with appeal No. 14 of 1963. Shri Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended before us that even with the redemption of the mortgage, the tenancy of Purshottam, appellant, created by the mortgagee while acting in the manner required under Section 76 (a) of the Transfer of Property Act, will not only not come to an end, but will also continue under the plaintiff-mortgagors, and he could be evicted only under the provisions of the Act.

( 6 ) SHRI Patankar, the learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that after the redemption of the mortgage, Purshottam does not continue to be a tenant of the mortgagor, nor does fee mortgagor re main his landlord, and therefore, tenancy not being subsisting after redemption, the appellant cannot seek protection of the Act.

( 7 ) IN our opinion, the contention of the appellant is untenable; (a) firstly, since under the terms of the mortgage-deeds (Exhibits D-1 to D-4), the mortgagor was entitled to be placed in possession of the mortgaged property after he paid the money due under the mortgage-deeds, the mortgagee could not so deal with the said property as would either defeat that right of the mortgagor or put an impediment in his way to secure that right. In the face of the Rent legislations