Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that appellant may have been holding the shop as tenant but his right to remain in occupation as tenant came to an end when he became mortgagee with possession. In my opinion, there is no evidence that tenant-Harbans Lal had surrendered possession and had put an end to his tenancy rights and there was merger of lessee's interest into mortgage's interest. It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that Harbans Lal had specifically denied the relationship of landlord and tenant in his reply to the ejectment application. He had stated that there was no relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and he is not in possession of the shop as tenant but is in possession of the shop as mortgagee of Jagtar Singh. Harbans Lal had pleaded that Jagtar Singh had never rented out the shop to him at a rental of Rs. 1500/- per month. In fact, Jagtar Singh had mortgaged the shop to him with possession for Rs. 3000/- vide registered mortgage deed dated 6.9.1988, on the same day, he had executed an agreement in his favour vide which he had received Rs. 4000/- from him. Vide this agreement, Jagtar Singh had agreed to return him the amount of Rs. 4000/- by 5.1.1989 and in case of failure to do so, Harbans Lal had option to recover the amount or Harbans Lal would become mortgagee with possession of the shop in dispute for Rs. 4000/-. Harbans Lal is in possession of the shop as mortgagee on the basis of agreement dated 6.9.1988 in part performance of the agreement and is protected under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. He is in possession of the Shop in dispute for a total mortgage amount of Rs. 7000/- paid to Jagtar Singh on 6.9.1988 vide mortgage deed and agreement. It was further pleaded by Harbans Lal in his reply to the ejectment application that about three months of the execution of the mortgage deed and agreement dated 6.9.1988, Jagtar Singh received Rs. 3000/- more from him and endorsement to this effect was written by him (Jagtar Singh) in his own hand. Jagtar Singh received this amount as an additional mortgage amount. Actually it was stipulated between the parties that Jagtar Singh would mortgage the shop in dispute for Rs. 10000/-but on 6.9.1988, Harbans Lal had paid only Rs. 7000/- for which amount, the mortgage deed and agreement were executed by Jagtar Singh and the remaining Rs. 3000/- was taken by Jagtar Singh later on from him (Harbans Lal). He is in possession of the shop as mortgagee for a total mortgage consideration of Rs. 10000/-. It was submitted that in the face of this plea put up by Harbans Lal in the ejectment proceedings, Harbans Lal could not be allowed to contend that he was a tenant of the shop when categoric case of Harbans Lal was that no ejectment application was competent against him as he was in possession as mortgagee."