Kan Singh, J. - (1.) THE question falling for consideration in the second appeal before us is whether a tenant inducted on the mortgaged property by a mortgagee in possession could invoke the protection of Section 13 of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1950, hereinafter to be referred as the "Act", as against the mortgagor, after the latter had redeemed the mortgage and it has arisen in this way:
(2.) RESPONDENT Shanker Lal had mortgaged his shop situate at Hamimangarh with Dwarka Dass by a registered mortgage deed on 14 -9 -53. In terms of the mortgage Dwarka Dass was put in actual possession of the shop. Thereafter he let out the shop to the appellants Ghamandi Ram and Sohan Lal. After some time Shankar Lal demanded from Dwarka Dass vacant possession of the shop, as he was prepared to pay off the mortgage debt. Dwarka Dass, however, could not do so on the sole ground that the physical possession of the mortgaged shop was not with himself, but with the defendants Ghamandi Ram and Sohanlal. Shanker Lal consequently brought the suit against the mortgagee and the tenants in the court of Civil Judge, Hanumangarh, and deposited the mortgage amount in the court. Dwarka Dass, however, did not contest the action, but the present appellants pleaded that the mortgagor was not entitled to evict them on account of the provisions of the Act and they were prepared to attorn to Shankar Lal. The learned Civil Judge held that the appellants were not entitled to the protection of the Act, as with the redemption of the mortgage the rights of the mortgagee came to an end and the appellants who derived title from the mortgagee could not be permitted to continue in possession of the premises. Accordingly, he passed a decree for possession in favour of the mortgagor. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge the appellants went up in appeal to the District Judge, Ganganagar, who dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decree of the trial court. This is how the appellants have come to this Court in second appeal. The appeal came up for hearing before a learned single Judge of this Court on 21 -8 -64. Quite a large number of authorities, both of this Court, as well as of the other High Courts, were cited before the learned Judge, who however, felt that the case required consideration by a larger Bench and accordingly he made a reference to a larger Bench which has now come up before us.
(3.) BEFORE we consider the various cases cited before us, we find it convenient to refer to the salient features of the Act.;