1, 2 and 3, who were the owners of the premises in dispute, mortgaged the premises in favour of respondent No.
The date of payment was October 8, 1952, but by a subsequent agreement dated November 18, 1952, this was extended.
The mortgagors, in execution of the said companypromise decree, sought to take possession of the premises in dispute, which had been rented to the appellant.
An appeal before the Additional District Judge also failed.
A mortgagee in possession had let out the premises, which was a cinema house, and the lessee had further sublet the same, to sub les Sections On redemption the purchaser of the interest of the mortgager filed a suit for possession of the property from the head lessee and the sub lessees.
50/ per month.
The appellant then filed the present suit under Order 21, Rule 103, CPC for a declaration that the plaintiff appellant being the tenant of defendants Nos.
55/ per month.
Vide two mortgage deeds dated December 5, 1947 and October 26, 1948, for the amounts of 12,000/ and Rs.
The points raised by Mr. Naunit Lal are companycluded by the decision of this Court in All India Film Corporation Ltd. v. Sri Rajagyan Nath , which decision was unfortunately number brought to our numberice during the companyrse of the hearing.
The appellants objections under Order 21 Rule 97, CPC, were ultimately disallowed by the High Court, in revision, on April 18, 1964.
During the pendency of this suit he let out the premises to the appellant at Rs.
It was with you previously at Rs.
In this case the facts were similar.
The agreement further provided as follows The portion of the house in your side shall remain with you at a rental of Rs.
43/ per month.
4, the mortgagee in possession, filed a suit for foreclosure.
On September 28, 1960, a companypromised decree for redemption was passed.
It was provided in the rent agreement between the mortgagee and the appellant that incase the owner of the house gets the house released from mortgage under us, then I shall get the house vacated for you and hand it over to you.
You shall have the right to let out the half portion of the shop on your side to any person at full rent On May 1, 1958 respondent No.
4,000/ respectively.
4, with possession.
The relevant facts for the determination of the points raised before us are as follows Respondents Nos.
M. Sikri, C.J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant before us.
