ROMESH CHANDER Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only issue regarding which arguments are being addressed in this ourt is vis-a-vis the scope of Section 11(h) of the Jammu & Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966. This provision requires the Court to examine as to under what circumstances prayer for partial eviction is to be considered. It is urged that even though issue No. 4 was specifically framed, the Courts below have not properly appreciated the scope of the statutory provisions referred to above. It is alleged that a mere observation that neither the plaintiff would be satisfied until and unless the entire shop is made available to him nor the defendants/appellant would be able to carry on his business in half of the premises is an observation which does not satisfy the requirements of the provisions referred to above. The relevant provision is Section-11(h). This provision reads as under :

(2.) IT is not in dispute that the shop in question is having an area of 12' x 18'. The front is 12' and the depth is 18 feet. The plaintiff-landlord respondent had filed the suit with a plea that he requires the entire shop for carrying on his karyana business. This need of his business was found to be established. Taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, the suit was decreed. As indicated above the only issue on which arguments have been addressed are vis-a-vis the question as to whether the respondent was required to be evicted from the whole of the premises or there should be partial eviction.

(3.) THE plaintiff had come to the Court with a plea that after the demise of his father he has been called upon to look after the entire family. The family consists of the widow, two brothers and three sisters. Paras 2 and 3 of the notice sent on behalf of the respondent-landlord to the appellant tenant reads as under :