HARBANS LAL Vs. AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appellant figured as a plaintiff in a suit for ejectment. This was filed under Section 11(1)(h) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act. This was with regard to a shop situated in Main Bazar Udhampur.

(2.) THE respondent is a tenant.

(3.) THE defendants filed the written statement. The plea taken was that the plaintiff is already carrying on business as a Chemist along with his minor son in another premises. It was, thus, pleaded that the shop/premises are not required by him. The fact that the plaintiff was living jointly with his son in the same residential accommodation, was projected in paragraph "5" of the written statement. It was admitted that the premises from where the plaintiff was carrying on business were owned by father-in-law of the plaintiff. Thus, the sum and substance of the pleadings on the part of the plaintiff was that the premises which were in his occupation, were owned by plaintiff's father-in-law. He had executed a gift. His father-in-law has since died and the property which stood gifted in favour of Rajinder Kumar has came under his i.e. ownership of Rajinder Kumar. A small portion of the shop which was owned by him, i.e. an area of the width of 3' has also come to vest in Rajinder Kumar. This was in pursuance of a deed of relinquishment executed by the plaintiff. He stated that he wants to carry on business in the premises, which has been let out to the defendant. This defendant admitted that the premises from which the plaintiff was carrying on business were owned by the father-in-law of the plaintiff. He, however, denied that the premises are required by the plaintiff. The fact that plaintiff was living jointly with his son, was projected.