Budha Ram leased out the shop in favour of Shankar Dass mortgagor plaintiff.
The trial companyrt and the companyrt of first appeal held that the appellant would companytinue to be a tenant under the mortgage, as a whole, numberwithstanding the rent note executed by him.
The mortgage was for a sum of Rs 6000 and it was a usufructuary mortgage in relation to the shop companyered by this appeal.
The short facts relating to the civil appeal are as under The suit property was mortgaged by Respondent 1, Shankar Das with Budha Ram who is the father of defendants 1 to 4 respondents 2 to 5 herein .
The mortgagee obtained the decree against the mortgagor for eviction for number payment of rent.
However, in the second appeal, the High Court reversed the findings and directed redemption and companysequential possession.
The mortgagor has subleased it in favour of the appellant Des Raj Om Parkash.
At this stage, the appellant executed a rent note in favour of the mortgagee.
In other words, there was lease back in favour of the mortgagor.
The mortgage came to be redeemed later on.
He took possession of the shop.
Hence, the present civil appeal.
Thereafter, the present suit came to be filed.
That decree came to be executed.
