HARNATH MALHOTRA Vs. DHANOO AGARWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two second appeals are preferred by two separate tenants against a common appellate judgment and decree for ejectment from the disputed premises, briefly in the following circumstances : Two separate suits were filed by the respondent as owner against her tenants H. N. Malhotra and H. P. Goenka for their ejectment from premises No. 1, Lower Rowdon Street, a two-storied building. Malhotra occupying ground floor and Goenka occupying the first floor. The premises had out-houses and garages etc. which were also occupied by both the tenants separately. Shortly put, the respondent's case is that she purchased the premises on October 15. 1960 and the appellants who were in occupation of the ground floor and first floor respectively continued as monthly tenants since her purchase. The ground of ejectment is reasonable requirement for the respondent's own use and occupation as she lives in the third floor of a rented premises which is too insufficient and inadequate for accommodating her ailing husband and other members of her family and servants as also office of several companies owned by her and some of the staffs working in the office. In spite of service of notice of ejectment and for institution of suit the defendants failed to vacate.

(2.) Both the appellants contested the suit and the written statements they put in consist of general denial of material allegations. In particular, they denied the reasonable requirement of the respondent for her own use and occupation as also the validity and sufficiency of the notices.

(3.) The learned trial Court found as a fact on evidence that the respondent required the premises reasonably for her own use and occupation but at the same time dismissed the suit on the view that the impugned notices were invalid as mere service of subsequent ejectment notices could not constitute waiver of earlier notices. On appeal by the respondent the appellate Court below concurred with the finding of the trial Court on the question of reasonable requirement but in disagreement with the trial Court on the question of validity of notices it also held that the impugned notices were valid and accordingly decreed both the suits. That is how, in short, both the appellants felt aggrieved and preferred the present appeals.