LAWS(J&K)-2002-10-20

KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. VIKAS GANDOTRA

Decided On October 09, 2002
KRISHAN KUMAR Appellant
V/S
Vikas Gandotra Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil second Appeal is directed against the judgement and decree recorded by the Principal District Judge, Udhampur dated 29.09.2001, whereby appeal of the appellant/defendant came to be dismissed by the trial court in civil original suit titled as Vikas Gandotra Vs. Krishan Kumar came to be confirmed.

(2.) THE facts leading upto this appeal are that a suit for ejectment of the single storey shop located at Bazar Chabutra, Udhampur came to be instituted by the respondent/plaintiff before the learned Munsiff, Udhampur against the appellant/ defendant with the averments that the suit shop which belongs to the respondent/ plaintiff was let out to the appellant/ defendant on monthly rent of Rs. 120/ - for a period of 11 months w.e.f. 01.06.1991, in this behalf a rent note dt 06.04.1991 came to be executed; that the contractual tenancy has come to an end but the appellant/ defendant has not delivered back the possession of the suit shop to the respondent/ plaintiff that the appellant/defendant continues to be in a possession of the suit shop as a statutory tenant; that the suit shop is a very old construction which is in delipidated condition likely to collapse any movement, therefore, it needs re -construction. That the respondent/plaintiff intends to construct a new pacca shop after demolishing the suit shop and also want to carve out a stair case as an approach to the first floor of the shop whereupon he want to raise further construction, for this, he has prepared a map and the same has been submitted to the Town Area Committee, Udhampur for sanction; that for meeting the costs of the proposed construction, the respondents plaintiff is capable of raising loan from his parents and other relations; that the suit shop is reasonably and bonafidely required for re -construction in as much as accommodation will be increased by converting it into a double storey structure which can be used by the plaintiff and will also avoid likelihood of the danger to the property and public life as such the proposed construction shall be in the public interest. That the respondent/ Plaintiff in order to settle himself in life requires the suit shop for starting his own business. The appellant/defendant has resisted the suit by filing the written statement, wherein he has disputed the reasonable and bonafide requirement of the suit shop by the respondent/plaintiff for re -construction or rebuilding by stating that all necessary repairs in the suit shop has been carried out by him at the instance of the father of the plaintiff. He has also disputed the reasonable and bonafide requirement of the plaintiff for starting his own business in the suit shop.

(3.) THE parties went to the trial with the following issues: - (i) Whether the plaintiff reasonably and bonafidely requires the suit shop for re -construction purposes? O.P.P (ii) In case issue No.1 is proved in affirmative whether the proposed reconstruction shall be in the public benefit? O.P.P (iii) Whether the plaintiff reasonably and bonafidely requires the suit shop for his own personal use and occupation? O.P.P (iv) In case issue No.3 is proved in affirmative what shall be comparative advantage and disadvantage of the parties? O.P.P (v) In case of ejectment on the ground of personal necessity whether the partial eviction from the suit shop can meet the requirement of the plaintiff and if so, whether the defendant is willing and ready for the same? O.P.P (vi) Relief. 