MOOL RAJ Vs. MOHINDER PAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole point that was urged on behalf of the appellant before me was that the courts below have failed to consider the question whether the landlord had the desire and means to reconstruct the shop.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the argument, it will be necessary to briefly refer to the observations made by the Courts below on this question. The trial court has touched this aspect in these words: "The plaintiff is a man of substance. He has the means and for that purpose he has already obtained the necessary sanction from the Notified Area Committee for construction of the two shops with rooms above."

(3.) THE lower appellate court has observed : "Let us see whether the plaintiff has the bonafide urge to rebuild the shop. On this point the plaintiff has produced an approved plan by the Town Area Committee Rajouri, which is on record. In addition to that the evidence on record is that the plaintiff has a sound financial position and he can raise the construction because this fact has not been rebutted or proved that the plaintiff has no source to build which could have dislodged the plaintiff s claim."