BALIA, J. - (1.) A short but interesting question is raised in this Revision Petition as to what should be the basis for evaluating a suit for the purpose of deciding pecuniary jurisdiction of the court to entertain it in a case, where a suit for eviction against he occupant of the property is filed by a person who is alienee of the property from mortgagee and the person in occupation is tenant, inducted by the mortgagee, whether the suit is to be valued as rent eviction suit or as a suit for possession against mortgagee simplicitor, is the question?
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the present petitioner was inducted as a tenant of the shop situated in Udaipur by one Dalchand Parmar. THE said shop was mortgaged with Dalchand Parmar by the present plaintiff- respondent Sunderlal. Sunderlal redeemed the mortgage and thereafter filed the present suit for evicting Malam Singh, defendant from the suit shop. He alleged in his plaint that since the defendant was inducted as a tenant by the mortgagee, said tenancy does not survive after redemption of mortgage because a tenant inducted by a mortgagee does not become ipso facto tenant of the mortgagor as well, and, therefore, the defendant is also not entitled to protection of the Rent Control Laws. In the alternative, the plaintiff has also claimed relief on the basis of tenancy. For the purposes of jurisdiction and court-fee, the plaintiff valued his suit as a rent ejectment suit and paid the court-fee accordingly. The defendant in his written statement, raised objections about the valuation and court-fee. His objection was that the present suit is, primarily, a suit for possession simplicitor and is to be valued as a suit for possession on the market value of the property. On the pleadings of the parties, among other issues, issue No. 5 was framed as under : Fook|d la- 5 vk;k de ekfy;r ,oa deh dksvz Qhl ij izlrqr fd;k x;k gs\** The trial court by the impugned order, has decided the said issue that merely because the plaintiff pleads that he defendant is not entitled to protection of Rent Control Laws, does not mean that the plaintiff is liable to pay court-fee as title-suit. For arriving at this conclusion, the trial court has relied on decision of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Gauri and Ors. Vs. Smt. Brijkanwar Devi (1 ). Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner has submitted that in his pleadings, the plaintiff has not accepted that any relationship of land-lord and tenant exist between the parties. The suit cannot be constituted as a suit for eviction, based on tenancy. He also contends that on redemption of mortgage, on the basis of which the plaintiff became entitled to get back the possession from the mortgagee, if the plaintiff was to file suit against the mortgagee for possession in case mortgagee failed to deliver possession, whatever be the nature of that suit, will also be the nature of the suit which is filed against any person who occupies the premises as transferee or assignee of the mortgagee, and the suit ought to be valued and subjected to court fees accordingly, in the like manner. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on decisions in Devkinandan and Ors. v. Roshan Lal & Ors. (2) and in Carona Shoe Co. Ltd. and another v. K. C. Bhaskaran Nair (3 ).
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, supported the order of the trial court and placed reliance on Smt. Gauri and Ors. v. Smt. Brijkanwar Devi (supra ). I have considered the rival contentions of the parties. There is no dispute and there cannot be a dispute in view of the Full Bench decision of this Court in Devkinandan's case (supra), wherein the Court, after considering a catena of Supreme Court decisions, expressed view regarding proposition of law that, in case there a mortgagee inducts any person as tenant in the mortgaged property, such tenancy is not protected under the Rent Control Acts, after the mortgagor has redeemed the property from mortgage and that, after such redemption, the relationship of landlord and tenant, between the mortgagee and his tenant extinguished, without any new relationship of landlord and tenant coming into existence between the mortgagor and the erstwhile tenant of the mortgagee except in certain circumstances. Regarding what will be the nature of suit filed by a mortgagor after redemption of the mortgage, against the erstwhile tenant; their Lordships of Supreme Court in Carona Shoe Co. Ltd. 's case (supra), observed : ". . . . . We are of the opinion that between the appellants and the respondent, there was never any landlord and tenant relationship. The appellants were never the tenants of the respondent. . . . . . . . . The respondents, the original mortgagor, would never after the redemption of the mortgage have treated the appellants to be tenants. There was no relationship ever between the appellants and the respondent. The mortgagor had a separate and distinct interest which was wiped out, on the redemption of the mortgage or expiry of the period of mortgage. The mortgagor on redemption of mortgage gets back his own right, he is not the successor-in-interest of the mortgagee (emphasis supplied ). Interest, if any, created by the mortgagee on the mortgagor's right must disappear on ceasing of interest of the mortgagee. . . . . . " ;