Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

11. Similarly, in All India Film Corporation Ltd. v. Raja Gyan Nath, 1969 (3) SCC 79 : (AIR 1969 NSC 185) it was held :

"The first question to consider is this : Did the tenancy created by the mortgagee in possession survive the termination of the mortgagee interest so as to be binding on the purchaser ? A general proposition of law is that no person can confer on another a better title than he himself has. A mortgage is a transfer of an interest in specific immovable property for the purpose of securing repayment of a loan. A mortgagees interest lasts only as long as the mortgage has not been paid off. Therefore, on redemption of the mortgage the title of the mortgagee comes to an end. A derivative title from him must ordinarily come to an end with the termination of the mortgagees title. The mortgagee by creating a tenancy becomes the lessor of the property, but his interest as lessor is conterminous with his mortgagee interest. S.111(c) of the Transfer of Property Act provides that a lease of immovable CS-281/2010 Page:-20/42 property determines where the interest of the lessor in the property terminates on, or his power to dispose of the same, extends only to the happening of any event - by the happening of such event. The duration of the mortgagees interest determines his position as the lessor. The relationship of lessor and lessee cannot subsist beyond the mortgagees interest unless the relationship is agreed to by the mortgagor or a fresh relationship is recreated. This the mortgagor or the person succeeding to do the mortgagors interest may elect to do. But if he does not, the lessee cannot claim any rights beyond the term of his original lessors interest. These propositions are well understood and find support in two rulings of this Court in Mahabir Gope v. Harbans Narain Singh, (AIR 1952 SC 205) and Asa Ram v. Mst. Ram Kali, (AIR 1958 SC 183)."

(11) ............................... The property was sold and the mortgage was satisfied. This led to the extinction of the mortgagees' interest and the purchaser acquired full title to the property. The termination of the mortgagee interest terminated the relationship of landlord and tenant and it could not, in the circumstances, be said to run with the land. There being no landlord and no tenant, the provisions of the Rent Restriction Act could not apply any further".

It is further observed that purchaser has dual character i.e. there was no redemption but the sale operated to extinguish the mortgage and transferred the right of mortgagor and mortgagee CS-281/2010 Page:-28/42 in favour of plaintiff being auction purchaser and the plaintiff being a auction purchaser acquired all right of the mortgagor and can ask for recovery of possession. It has been further observed that M/s Lakhi Ram Mahi Lal other defendant in other case was inducted on 02.09.70 and Samman Oil & General Mill was inducted on 20.03.70 and Indraprastha Finance Company other defendant in other case was inducted on 16.09.1970; whereas the sale proclamation of the property was ordered on 21.07.1970 and the date of auction was 25.09.70. The predecessor of defendant was inducted in the year 1940 and preliminary decree was passed on 25.01.1935 and final decree for sale was passed on 23.05.1940. The acts of the mortgagees in inducting tenants with unlimited terms and even after the passing of the final decree on 23.5.1940 and even long after the sale of the property were ordered had resulted in reduction of the value of the property at the time of the auction which reflects their malafide intentions of causing injury to the value of the property for their illegal gains. Especially when the decree for sale having passed on 23.5.1940, the Mortgagee's right to induct any tenant ceased. It is submitted that when the property was put to sale and was purchased by the plaintiff the mortgage was redeemed. Whether the mortgagor makes the payment or the property was put on sale for failure of the mortgagor to pay the amount, this cannot create any benefit to defendant because it is well settled law that after sale of the property the auction purchaser acquires all the right/interest of the mortgagor as well as of mortgagee as they existed on the date of mortgage. It was held in (1969 (3) SCC 79) titled as All India Films Corporations V. Raja Gian Nath "That the interests of the CS-281/2010 Page:-29/42 mortgagor and mortgagee united in the person of the purchaser and the mortgage ceased to subsist. In this view of the matter the purchaser, speaking in his character as a mortgagor, could claim that the mortgagee's action came to an end and there did not subsist any relationship between him and the tenants. It was held in AIR 1940 PC 11 titled as Jadunath Roy & Ors. Vs. Parameswar Mullick & Ors. - that "while the purchaser at an execution sale under a mere money decree gets no more than the right title and interest of the judgment debtor at the date of the sale, the purchaser under a mortgage decree gets the right, title and interest in the mortgage subject which the mortgagor had at the date of mortgage and charged thereby. Buying the mortgage property free of encumbrances he gets, as it is sometimes put the title both of mortgagor and mortgagee and of those interested in the equity of redemption at the date of the sale. It is seen that therefore after the sale of the property, the plaintiff acquired all the rights and interest of both the mortgagor and mortgagees as they existed on the date of mortgage and the mortgagor has not consented for the creation of tenancies beyond the terms of the mortgage to be binding upon the mortgagor after redemption. As such the tenants inducted by the mortgagees would not be entitled to the protection of the DRC Act and after the cessation of mortgagees interest in the property with the sale of the property on 25.9.70, the relationship of lessor and lessee comes to an end and it is not binding on the auction purchaser and as such their occupation become illegal and unauthorised and therefore they are liable to handover the vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiff who is the lawful owner of the same.

15. Issue No. 8. Whether the plaintiff has not acquired right of redemption by purchasing the suit property in public auction as of mortgage in a suit of foreclosure under the final decree due to non-payment of decreetal amount by the judgment debtors?OPD:- While deciding the issue No.1, it has already been noted that the counsel for plaintiff submitted that that the purchaser has a dual character i.e. there was no redemption but the sale operated to extinguish the mortgage and transfer the rights of the mortgagor and the mortgagee in favour of the purchaser. As the purchaser acquired all the rights and title of the mortgagor and can ask for possession. When the property was put to sale and was purchased by the plaintiff the mortgage was redeemed. Whether the mortgagor makes the payment or the property was put on sale for failure of the mortgagor to pay the amount, this cannot create any benefit to defendant because it is well settled law that after sale of the property the auction purchaser acquires all the right/interest of the mortgagor as well as of mortgagee as they existed on the date of mortgage. It was held in (1969 (3) SCC 79) That the interests of the mortgagor and mortgagee united in the person of the purchaser and the mortgage ceased to subsist. In this view of the matter the purchaser, speaking in his character as a mortgagor, CS-281/2010 Page:-40/42 could claim that the mortgagee's action came to an end and there did not subsist any relationship between him and the tenants. It was also held in AIR 1940 PC 11 - that "while the purchaser at an execution sale under a mere money decree gets no more than the right title and interest of the judgment debtor at the date of the sale, the purchaser under a mortgage decree gets the right, title and interest in the mortgage subject which the mortgagor had at the date of mortgage and charged thereby. Buying the mortgage property free of encumbrances he gets, as it is sometimes put the title both of mortgagor and mortgagee and of those interested in the equity of redemption at the date of the sale.