DALBIR KUMAR SONI Vs. SHAM LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Second Appeal has .been preferred by the plaintiff -landlord against the judgement and decree dated Sept. 21, 1981 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Jammu whereby he has allowed the appeal of the respondent -defendant -tenant against the judgment and decree dated Feb. 20, 1981 passed by the learned Sub Judge (Chief Judicial Megistrate) Jammu whereby he had decreed the suit of the plaintiff -landlord and ordered the eviction of the defendant -tenant.,

(2.) THE demise premises is a shop situated at Gumat Bazar, at Jammu. The shop in question is owned under the ownership of the appellant who admittedly is the landlord of the respondent. The respondent had taken the shop on lease on a monthly rent of Rs.40/ - from 1st. March 1960 and a rent note was executed by him in favour of the appellant wherein it was agreed that the rent would be paid on each month and shop would be vacated, on one monthâ„¢s notice. The appellantâ„¢s contention is that the shop was reasponably required for him for setting up the business for his unemployed son namely Suresh Kumar who had undergone practical training in the repair -works of electric goods and because he has no other business or source of income, he wanted to gainfully employee his son Suresh Kumar and it was for his benefit that the appellant wanted the possession of the shop to be restored to him after ordering the eviction of the respondent from the demise premises. Pressed by this requirement, the appellant served a notice on the respondent terminating the tenancy of the respondent with effect from Aug. 31, 1973 and this notice was served upon the respondent on July 19, 1973 because the respondent, despite the service of notice failed to vacate the premises despite the fact that in the said notice, his tenancy had been terminated, the appellant was restrained to file the suit praying for the decree of eviction against the respondent. The only ground on which the suit was instituted was, therefore, the personal requirement of the appellant for the benefit of his son Suresh Kumar, who was according to the appellant was unemployed and required to be gainfully employed so as to be economically independent.

(3.) IN the written statement filed by the respondent in the trial court, The tenancy was admitted, but the rate of rent was denied. It was denied that the rate of rent was Rs.40/ - per month, but it was submitted that factually speaking the respondent was paying Rs. one hundred per month to the appellant who was recording only receipt of Rs. forty per month. The personal necessity and bona -fide requirement of the appellant was disputed by the respondent. It was specifically alleged that the shop was not required by the appellant for the benefit of his son Suresh Kumar on the ground that the son was running a ËœHotelâ„¢ under the name of "Suresh Hotel" and was also receiving education in the Science College, Jammu. Respondent in the written statement also submitted that it had become an hobby for the appellant to concept and give false claims regarding his requirement relating to the shop under occupation of his tenant and by way of a notice in support of this allegation, it was submitted that one shop adjacent to the demise premises was let out by the appellant to one Banarsi Dass to whom a notice of ejectment was served on the plea that the shop was required for the personal use and occupation of the appellant, Because the said Banarsi Dass, did not desire to enter into any litigation and also because the said Banarsi Dass himself owned some shops, he vacated the shop voluntarily without the parties having entered into any litigation. It was contended that after the shop was vacated by the said Banarsi Dass, the appellant re -let it out to one Girdhari Lal and once again, after a little while, notice of ejectment was served upon the new tenant Girdhari Lal as well. This notice was followed by filing of the suit and obtaining the decree of ejectment against Girdhari Lai in 1963 whereby Girdhari Lal was obliged to vacate the shop in the year, 1978. It was also submitted in the written statement that the appellant owns a bus in the name of his wife and also owns some more property in Jammu City and has some other business and, therefore he does not require (he demised premises for his personal use and occupation and in any case the requirement of the appellant was neither bona -fide nor reasonable and that the suit had been filed only to harass the respondent and to obtain more rent and put pressure on him to increase the rent.