(1.) THIS is a defendant's appeal in a suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiff on the ground that the shop in question was required for the personal necessity of the plaintiff and his grand-sons who wanted to start their new business therein. The shop was leased out to the defendant as far back as Maghar 4, 2006 (Samvat) and the present suit was brought some time in February, 1966. The suit was decreed by the City Judge, Jammu, who accepted the plaintiff's case and held that the necessity alleged by the plaintiff was proved. The defendant went up in appeal to the District Judge who upheld the judgment and the decree of the trial Court dismissed the appeal. The defendant then came up in second appeal to this court which was heard by Bhat, J. who by his order dated May 21, 1970, confirmed the findings of fact arrived at by the courts below and dismissed the appeal but granted leave to file appeal under the Letters Patent to the defendant. Hence this appeal before us.
(2.) MR . Mahajan appearing for the appellants submitted two points before us. In the first place he urged that the appeal had abated because the plaintiff had died before the judgment could be pronounced. This contention, however, does not appear to be tenable because by virtue of Order 22, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, where the plaintiff dies after the hearing but before the pronouncement of judgment, there is no abatement. In the present case the arguments in the case concluded on May 8, 1970 and the plaintiff died 12 days later i.e. on May 20, 1970 and the judgment was pronounced on May 21, 1970. In these circumstances the present case clearly fell within the purview of Order 22, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which prevents abatement. The first contention raised by Mr. Mahajan is, therefore, overruled.
(3.) LASTLY Mr. Mahajan submits that the defendant should be given a reasonable time to vacate the premises and he prayed that at least one year's time should be given to him for the purpose. We are, however, unable to accede to this contention. The suit was filed as far back as 1966 and reached its conclusion in the year 1972. The tenant had admittedly six years during which he occupied the shop even though the landlord required the shop for his personal necessity. There is no equity at all in his favour to warrant extension of time. In these circumstances, therefore, the prayer of Mr. Mahajan is rejected. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.