HANUMANT KUMAR TELESARA versus MOHAN LAL

Citation: [1988] 2 S.C.R. 99 · Decided: 01-12-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

' 
1 
' 
1-
HANUMANT KUMAR TELESARA 
v. 
MOHAN LAL 
DECEMBER 1, 1987 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ.] 
Rights of tenant of mortgaged property let out by mortgagee to 
continue in possession of the property after redemption of the 
mortgage-Mortgagor's right to have possession of the property after 
redemption. 
The respondent mortgaged his shop and delivered possession 
thereof to the mortgagees with the right to collect rent from the tenant 
in payment of the interest on the mortgage amount. The mortgagees 
let out the premises to the appellant (tenant), during the subsistence of 
the mortgage. 
The respondent filed a suit against the mortgagees for redemp-
tion of the mortgage and recovery of vacant possession of the 
mortgaged shop. The appellant-tenant was also impleaded as a party-
defendant in the suit. The suit was decreed and the mortgage was 
redeemed, with an order to the mortgagees to give possession of the 
shop to the respondent. The appellant-tenant filed an application 
under Section 47, read with Section lSl of the C.P.C. stating that the 
decree of redemption could not be executed and possession given by 
the mortgagees to the respondent/decree-holder, as the tenancy of the 
appellant subsisted and the same had not been terminated under the 
provisions of the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent and Eviction) 
Act, 1950. This plea of the appellant was rejected by the executing 
Court which held that the decree was executable and the appellant had 
no interest and he could not resist the execution of the decree. 
Against this Judgment and Order of the court, the appellant 
filed an appeal which was allowed. Thereupon, the respondent pre-
ferred a second appeal which was allowed by the High Court. The 
appellant appealed to this Court by special leave against the order of 
the High Court. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court on a conspectus of the various 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
decisions of the Court on the subject, 
H 
99 
100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1988] 2 S.C.R. 
.f\ 
HELD: The lease given by the mortgagee during the subsistence 
of the mortgage came to an end on the redemption of the mortgage. 
The tenant of the mortgagee in possession is not entitled to the 
protection of the Rent Act against the mortgagor after redemption of 
the mortgage, as held by the Rajasthan High Court in 1984 R.L.R. 
709, following the decisions of this Court. The letting out of the 
B premises to the appellant-tenant was not a prudent act done in the 
ordinary course of management, as held by all the Courts below. The 
respondent/mortgagor-landlord is entitled to get recovery of posses· 
sion. [ 106A·D I 
M/s. Sacha/ma/ Parasram v. Mst. Ratanbai and Ors., AIR 1972 
C (SC) 637; The All India Film Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v. Sri Raja Gyan 
Nath & Ors. [1969] 3 SCC 79; Mahabir Gape & Ors. v. Harbans 
Narain Singh & Ors., [1952] 3 SCR 775; Harihar Prasad Singh & 
Anr. v. Must. of Munshi Nath Prasad & Ors., [1956] SCR 1; Asa Ram 
& Anr. v. Mst. Ram Kali Anr. AIR 1958 (SC) 183 and Om Prakash 
Garg v. Ganga Sahai & Ors. JT 1987 I SC 245, referred to. 
D 
t 
' 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2524 
/... 
E 
F 
of 1985. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.1984 of the Rajas· 
than High Court in S.A. No. 12 of 1976. 
Shankar Ghosh, B.P. Maheshwari and Jl:S. Dorpura for the 
Appellant. 
V.M. Tarkunde, S.K. Jain, Himansu Atrey and Mrs. Probha 
Jain for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
RAY, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment 
and order dated 26th November, 1984 in S.B. Civil Execution Second 
Appeal No. 12 of 1976 whereby the appeal was allowed and respon-
G dent was granted one year time to vacate the premises. 
H 
The facts giving rise to this appeal are as follows:-
The respondent mortgaged the shop belonging to him to the 
defendant Nos. 1 to 11 on 9th May, 1950 by a registered 
mortgage deed. The possession of the premises was given to the 
y 
t 
... 
HANUMANT v. MOHAN LAL [RAY. J.] 
101 
mortgagees with right to collect rent from the tenant in payment 
of interest on the mortgage amount. the mortgagees let out the 
premises to the defendant petitioner during the subsistence of 
mortgage. 
The respondent filed a suit for redemption of the mortgage and 
for vacant possession of the said shop against the mortgagees i.e. the 
defendant Nos. I to 11. The appellant who was the tenant of the shop 
was impleaded as party defendant No. 12 in the suit. The suit was 
decreed and the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.