JOGINDER KUMAR Vs. RAM KOUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a motion for admission of a Civil Second Appeal directed against the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2001 in File No. 2/Appeal passed by the Second Additional District Judge, Jammu. By the aforesaid judgment and decree, appeal of the defendant/appellant stood dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case depicted in narration are that, the demised premises were rented out to the defendant/appellant on a monthly rental of Rs. 50/-. That the tenant/defendant had not been paying the rent regularly and instead deposited it with the Rent Controller, Jammu. It is further averred that the defendant committed more than three defaults of not paying rent within a period of 18 months thereafter. It is further the case of the plaintiff/respondent that the tenanted shop is reasonably required after converting it into a room, to accommodate his son recently married on 8-2-1987 as the members of the family experience a great hardship, on account of shortage of accommodation. That the reasonable requirement of the plaintiff/respondent cannot be met by partial eviction and the present accommodation available with the family is not sufficient to accommodate his newly married son.

(3.) THE appellant, however, proceeded exparte vide order dated 29-10-1999. The application for setting aside exparte proceedings also stood rejected on 6-3- 2000 as the case was reserved for judgment. After recording the oral and documentary evidence offered by the parties, the Trial Court came to the conclusion that the plaintiff/respondent personally requires the suit shop to accommodate his married son for his residence by converting it into a room and that the need of the plaintiff is genuine, bonafide and comparatively more preferential than that of the defendant/appellant and also that the partial eviction cannot meet the requirement of the parties. In so far as the ground of default is concerned, it remained unproved in any of the evidence. The decree for eviction was however, passed only on the ground of personal necessity of the plaintiff/respondent.