Bapna, J. - (1.) THIS is a second appeal by the judgment-debtor in execution proceedings.
(2.) RESPONDENT No. I, Ram Ratan, obtained a decree for redemption of mortgage of certain agricultural land against Nand Kishore and Ram Kishan, and the final decree was made on the 5th January, 1949. This decree was put in execution, and the judgment-debtors made an objection that although they were liable to give up possession as mortgagees, yet they were entitled to hold on as tenants, and were protected from ejectment under the provisions of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance. The objection was rejected by the two courts below, and one of the judgment-debtors, Nand Kishore, has come up in second appeal. An application was presented to-day that the first appellate court should have trans-fered the appeal to the Court of Collector as the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act had come into force after the decision of the executing court. This contention has no force in view of my decision in Khayali vs. Nathi (1954 RLW 700) wherein it has been held that sec. 6 of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act does not touch appeals pending in a civil court. It was next contended that the definition of tenant in sec. 2 (viii) of the Rajasthan (Protection of Tenants) Ordinance, 1949, was sufficiency wine to include a mortgagee in occupation of agricultural land paying to the Government. This may be so when such mortgagee seeks to get back possession after having been ousted by a party other then the mortgagor, because a mortgagee in possession comes to occupy the land under the permission of the mortgagor, and he holds the land on the same terms with the Government on which the mortgagor held the property. But when the mortgagor himself wants to get possession of the property after redeeming the mortgage, the mortgagee has no interest left in him, for his interest is limited to the amount of money secured by the mortgage. So far as the Government is concerned, the mortgagor remains the tenant, and it is only by a particular arrangement that the mortgagee discharges the liability of the mortgagor to pay rent to the Government. According to the definition leaving aside superfluities "tenant" means a person by whom rent is or would be payable. The rent is obviously payable by the mortgagor to the Government, and he is the tenant. The mortgagee enjoys possession of the land on certain terms and conditions settled between the mortgagor and the mortgagee, so that so far as the Government if concerned the mortgagor continues to be the tenant, although the rent may be paid by the mortgagee on behalf of the mortgagor. The appellant is not entitled to any protection against dispossession by the mortgagor in execution of a decree for redemption of the mortgage. This appeal has no force, and is dismissed with costs. .;