JUDGMENT
B. Prasad, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for parties.
2. The appellant in this case was a mortgagee of a land by a mortgagor Arun Kumar. In the mortgage deed though it was recited that the shop in question can be rented out if need be when the mortgagee does not use it for his personal purpose. After redemption of mortgage, the tenants of the mortgagee whether are protected to remain in possession as statutory tenants is the question involved.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon a Supreme Court decision in the case of Puran Chand (deceased) & through L.RS. and Ors. v. Kirpal Singh (deceased) and Ors. (1). It has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case that the tenant could continue in possession despite redemption by proving that the tenancy was created by the mortgagee as an act of prudent management and was protected by statute. The statute sought to be pressed into service in the instant case is the Rajasthan Premises (Control of Rent & Eviction) Act, 1950 (for short “the Rajasthan Act”).
4. In the above Supreme Court decision, in Para No. 18, a statute has been quoted being Pepsu Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1955 and in that Act, Section 8-B provides express protection to the mortgage’s tenants. No such providaffce has been indicated in the Rajasthan Act. There being no providance of any kind of such protection to the tenant in the Rajasthan Act, the statutory protection is not available to the tenant. The statutory protection as claimed being not available in the Statute which is sought to be pressed into service, no such protection can be seen available to the appellant – mortgagee for his tenants. Further, this court in a Full Bench Decision in the case of Devkinandan and Anr. v. Roshan Lal and Ors. (2), has held that a tenant of mortgagee in possession is not entitled to the provision of the Rajasthan Act.
5. In the view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of the Court and the facts of the decision rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Puran Chand’s case (supra) being distinguishable, I don’t think that any substantial question of law is involved in this appeal requiring this court to grant indulgence. The appeal having no force, is hereby dismissed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant at this stage prays for grant of sufficient time to vacate the premises. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it proper to grant one year’s time to the appellant to vacate the premises. It is hereby ordered that the appellant shall not be dispossessed form the suit premises on or before completion of one year provided:
(1) He files an undertaking before the trial court that in the meanwhile he shall continuously continue to pay or deposit the mesne profits at the rate of last paid rent and/or arrears of rent, if any.
(2) He shall not part with possession or otherwise create any third party rights in the disputed property during this period.
(3) He undertakes to deliver the vacant and peaceful possession of the disputed premises on or before completion of one year.
7. The undertaking shall be filed before the trial court within a period of one month from today.
8. Subject to aforesaid grant of time, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.