RSA No. 450 of 2000 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh RSA No. 450 of 2000 Date of decision: April 26, 2011 Smt.Hoshyari and others ......Appellants Versus Dharambir and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Sanjay Mittal,Advocate for the appellants Mr.C.B.Goel,Advocate and Mr.Ankur Jain, Advocate for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Dharambir had filed a suit for permanent injunction. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, was that he was cultivating the suit property as gair marusi tenant on payment of ` 1200/- per year as rent. The defendants were threatening to interfere in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff. Defendant No.2 had filed an application seeking ejectment of the plaintiff before the Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Jhajjar but the same was got dismissed as withdrawn on 12.9.1994. Defendants No. 10 to 15 in collusion with each other filed an application for redemption of the suit land against defendants No. 1 to 9 before the Collector, Jhajjar and the said RSA No. 450 of 2000 2 application was allowed. The order, passed by the Collector, Jhajjar dated 19.4.1995 whereby defendants No. 10 to 15 were allowed to get the suit land redeemed was not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. Defendants No. 1,2, 4 to 7 and 9, in their written statement, admitted the possession of the plaintiff over the suit land. It was averred that the tenancy had been created by defendants No.1 to 9 in favour of the plaintiff who were the mortgagees over the suit land. The payment of rent by the plaintiff was denied. Since defendants No. 10 to 15 had got the land redeemed, plaintiff could not remain in possession of the suit land. Defendants No. 10 to 15, in their written statement, averred that the suit land had been mortgaged by their ancestors with defendants No. 1 to 9. They got the suit land redeemed by paying the mortgage amount. The plaintiff was a tenant under the mortgagee and,hence, when the mortgage had been redeemed, plaintiff had no right to remain in possession of the suit land. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- “1.Whether the plaintiff is in possession over the suit land as gair marusi tenant?OPP 2.Whether the order passed by the Collector dated 19.4.95 is illegal, null and void and is liable to be set aside on the ground alleged?OPP 3.Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction on the ground alleged?OPP 4.Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the RSA No. 450 of 2000 3 present suit?OPD 5.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 6.Relief” The Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) vide judgment and decree dated 13.2.1999 decreed the suit of the plaintiff and restrained the defendants from evicting the plaintiff from the suit land in execution of order dated 19.4.1995 and held that the plaintiff could be evicted in due course of law . Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, defendants No. 10 to 15 preferred an appeal and the same was dismissed by the Additional District Judge vide judgment and decree dated 20.11.1999. Hence, the present appeal by defendants no. 10 to 15. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the appellants had no right to remain in possession of the suit land after the land had been got redeemed by the appellants as the appellants had never inducted the plaintiff as a tenant. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has submitted that in a case of agricultural land, tenant inducted by way of usurfructuary mortgagee could not be evicted in execution of the decree for redemption unless eviction order was passed as per law. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Full Bench Jagan Nath Piare Lal vs. Mittar Sain and others AIR 1970 Punjab and Haryana 104(V.57 C16)(1). Para 12 of the judgment reads as under:- “After giving the matter my careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that: RSA No. 450 of 2000 4 (1) A tenant of a mortgagor, after the mortgage, necessarily attorns to the mortgagee and thereby becomes a tenant of the mortgagee,unless his tenancy has been put an end to by the mortgagor at the time of effecting the mortgage. On the redemption of the mortgage, he again is relegated to his position of a tenant of the mortgagor; (2) The mere execution of a rent-note by the tenant of the mortgagor in favour of the mortgagee, after the mortgage has been effected, does not create a fresh tenancy in favour of the mortgagee. But there is nothing to prevent the tenant to surrender his earlier tenancy and enter into a fresh contract of tenancy with the mortgagee; and in each case, it will have to be determined on evidence, wheteher a tenant of the mortgagor did surrender his tenancy and obtained a fresh tenancy from the mortgagee after the mortgage came into being: (3) That a tenant inducted by the mortgagee remained a tenant during the continuance of the mortgage and on the redemption of the mortgage the tenancy comes to an end; (4) That in the case of agricultural tenancies, proposition No.(3) does not absoloutely hold good. There is an exception to it, namely, that the tenant of a mortgagee of agricultural land will continue to be its tenant even after redemption provided he has been inducted bona fide and in the like manner as a prudent owner would have done for the proper management of the land. Even in such a case, the operation of the lease cannot extend beyond the period for RSA No. 450 of 2000 5 which it was granted. No lease can be granted if there is an express prohibition in the mortgage deed. The onus to prove the exception is on the tenant and unless a clear case is made out in favour of the exception, the general rule will prevail. (6) That it is open to a mortgagor to permit the mortgagee to induct tenants even beyond the terms of the mortgage; and if the mortgagee does so, on redemption, they will continue to be the tenants of the mortgagor” After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves dismissal. In the present case, the mortgaged land is agricultural land. The land in question was mortgaged by the ancestors of the appellants with defendants No. 1 to 9. The appellants sought redemption of the suit land and vide order dated 19.4.1995, the application filed by the appellants for redemption of the suit land was allowed. Admittedly, the plaintiff is in possession of the suit land. The question that requires consideration is as to whether the plaintiff can be evicted from the suit property in execution of the order dated 19.4.1995. As per the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Jagan Nath Piare Lal's case (supra), in case of agricultural tenancies, the tenant of a mortgagee of agricultural land will continue to be the tenant even after redemption provided he has been inducted bona fide and in the like manner as a prudent owner would have been done for the proper management of the land. There is no mortgage deed on record to suggest that at the time of the execution of the mortgage any stipulation had been specifically made RSA No. 450 of 2000 6 prohibiting lease/renting out of the suit land. The mortgage was with possession and the possession of the suit land was handed over to the mortgagee. Since it was agricultural land, the mortgagees must have rented out the suit property for its better management. In these circumstances, the Courts below rightly came to the conclusion that the plaintiff could not be evicted from the suit land except in due course of law as he was in possession of the suit property as a tenant. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Dismissed. ( Sabina ) Judge April 26,2011 arya