RAMCHANDRA LACHMINARAYAN Vs. SHILLONG GENERAL PUBLIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Defendant No. 1 against the decision of the learned Single Judge or this Court. The Plaintiffs' case is that a building known as the Quinton Memorial Hall at Shillong is a trust property. The trust was created in the year 1908 under a registered deed. During the world war II it was requisitioned by the Government for use by the Air Raid Precaution Department of Shillong. Defendant No. 1 thereafter managed to get into the premises and was occupying it as a monthly tenant at the rate of Rs. 150/ - per month according to the English calendar. The Defendant: is running a cinema house in the main Hall and has sub -let portions of the premises. He is also running a motor workshop in the compound. The public are demanding that the Hall should be made available to them for the purpose for which the trust was created. Thus the trustees brought a suit for ejectment of the Defendant after serving on the Defendant notice to quit on the 22nd August 1955. The suit was decreed by the trial court. On appeal the Additional District Judge dismissed the same with costs and the learned Single Judge has reversed the decision of the lower appellate court and decreed the suit.

(2.) TWO points have been raised by the Appellant. Firstly it is urged that the notice was not a valid notice as the date of the commencement of the tenancy is not given in the plaint and is not disclosed in the evidence. The contention is that even if the finding is accepted that the tenancy was according to the English calendar month, unless the date of the commencement of the tenancy is known and is proved by the Plaintiff's, it cannot be said that the notice asking the Defendants to quit the premises by the 30th September 1955 is a valid notice. Secondly it is urged that the finding as to whether the land was bona fide required by the landlords for their use is a finding of fact and the learned Single judge was not right in upsetting that finding. It is further urged that on the mere assertion by some of the trustees in the absence of any demand by the public for the Hall, it cannot be said that the landlords bona fide required the premises for their own use. Lastly it is urged that the finding of the learned Single Judge that the provisions of Section 6 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act (hereinafter called the Act) do not apply to the present case is erroneous.

(3.) IN paragraph 6 of the plaint it is alleged that the Defendant is a monthly tenant on a rental of Rs. 150 per month according to the English calendar.