IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 321 of 2003 Decided on 20.04.2010 Shri Madan Lal ..…Appellant/Defendant. Versus Shri Angat Ram …..Respondent/Plaintiff. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting? Yes. For the Appellant : S/Shri Paresh Sharma, Surinder Sharma and Shivank Singh Panta, Advocates. For the respondent : Ms Devyani Sharma, Advocate. V.K. Sharma, Judge (Oral) The facts giving rise to the dispute between the parties lie within a narrow compass. The suit out of which the present Regular Second Appeal has arisen, was filed by the respondent, Shri Angat Ram, as plaintiff against the appellant, Shri Madan Lal, being the defendant. The parties shall here-in-after be referred to according to their status as before the learned trial court, that is, plaintiff and defendant, respectively. Admittedly, the plaintiff is owner of the shop in suit ( the shop), fully detailed and described in para 1 of the plaint. It is also not in dispute that he had mortgaged the shop with Shri Chaudhary Ram (PW-2). The case set up by the plaintiff was that the mortgagee, Shri Chaudhary Ram had inducted one Shri Shakti Chand as a tenant in the shop. Thereafter, the mortgage was redeemed on 21.12.1989. It was further averred that Shri Shakti Chand vacated the shop on 2.2.1985, in lieu of a ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. 2 sum of Rs. 8000/- paid to him by the said Shri Chaudhary Ram. The further allegation was that thereafter the defendant, Shri Madan Lal, entered into forcible possession of the shop. Conversely, the case set up by the defendant, Shri Madan Lal, is that he was inducted as a tenant in the shop by the mortgagee, Shri Chaudhary Ram, by way of agreement, Ex.DW- 1/B, dated 11.12.1984. The defendant, Shri Madan Lal, has been concurrently held to be a tenant inducted by the mortgagee, by both the learned courts below. It was against this backdrop that the appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law:-- Whether the courts below have misread agreement Ex.DW- 1/B, dated 11.12.1984, duly signed by the plaintiff whereby the tenancy had been created in favour of the defendant / appellant? I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records. I have no hesitation to say at the very outset that even if the allegations made by the plaintiff that the defendant had entered into forcible possession of the shop are not admitted to be correct, even in that event, there is no difficulty in holding that the status of the defendant is only of a tenant having been inducted by the mortgagee, Shri Chaudhary Ram. Here a submission is made on behalf of the defendant that agreement Ex.DW-1/B, dated 11.12.1984, has not been construed by both the learned courts below in the right perspective. To elaborate it has been highlighted that the plaintiff had himself consented for induction of the defendant as a tenant in the shop, by the mortgagee, Shri Chaudhary Ram, as the former (plaintiff) was a signatory to agreement Ex.DW-1/B, as one of the marginal witnesses. Even if it 3 was so, a combined and harmonious reading of the agreement Ex.DW-1/B, dated 11.12.1984, would go to show that the same purports to be an agreement for creation of tenancy by Shri Chaudhary Ram, being the mortgagee/landlord and the defendant, Shri Madan Lal, being the tenant, but the fact remains that though there is recital in the agreement about the said Shri Chaudhary Ram, being the mortgagee/landlord, yet the agreement nowhere contains his signatures. It being so, in a way, the agreement would not be deemed to be complete for want of signatures of one of the contracting party to the same. Secondly, the agreement purports to create a tenancy on month to month basis for a period of 11 months, commencing from 11.12.1984, that is, the date of agreement. In such situation, even if the plaintiff had signed the agreement Ex.DW-1/B, as a marginal witness, it can at best amount to his being a consenting party for creation of a monthly tenancy by the mortgagee, Shri Chaudhary Ram, in his capacity as such in favour of the defendant, Shri Madan Lal. In such situation, taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and settled legal position in the matter enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this court consistently from time to time and particularly in Smt. Kanta Devi v. Shri Khushia, 1996 (2) Sim. L.C. 365, holding that in the case of a property comprising of house/shop etc. the status of the tenant inducted by the mortgagee would come to an end as soon as the mortgage is redeemed. To be explicit, the principle of law is that the tenant inducted by the mortgagee goes with the mortgagee as soon as the mortgage is redeemed. The above discussion brings me to hold that it cannot be said that the learned courts below have misread the agreement Ex.DW-1/B, dated 11.12.1984. 4 In the result, I find no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. The records of the courts below be sent back. (V.K. Sharma) Judge. 20th April, 2010 Lsp*