J.V.GUPTA,J. - (1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal against whom decree for possession has been passed by both the Courts below.
(2.) THE plaintiffs Kharaiti Ram and Babu Ram mortgaged with possession the shop in dispute with Assa Ram, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 for a sum of Rs. 3,000 on 18th January, 1957. Accordingly possession was handed over of the shop to the mortgagee. During the mortgage, the mortgagee had inducted Kishan Singh as tenant (the present appellant) in the shop in dispute. Hence the present suit was filed for redemption against the mortgagee as well as against the defendant Kishan Singh. The suit was contested by Kishan Singh, tenant, on the plea that he was tenant under the mortgagors prior to the mortgage and, therefore, he was not liable to eviction on redemption. In the alternative, he pleaded that he was tenant of the mortgagee with the consent of the mortgagors, and, therefore, he would continue to be the tenant even after redemption.
(3.) ON the appreciation of the entire evidence, the trial Court found that although Kishan Singh, tenant, had been inducted by the mortgagee himself, there was no consent by the mortgagors for this tenancy. Though in the mortgage deed, it was provided that the mortgagee could use the shop, either himself or could induct a tenant of his choice, but that did not mean that the mortgagors consented that the said tenancy will continue even after redemption. Consequently, the plaintiffs suit was decreed against Kishan Singh tenant as well.;