KANTA RANI Vs. SOM NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil second appeal owes is origin to Civil Suit No. 36 of 1973 on the file of learned Sub-Registrar, Jammu, who on the trial of the suit filed by the appellant Smt. Kanta Rani "here-in-after referred to as the plaintiff' against the respondent Som Nath" here-in-after referred to as the defendant" in a suit for ejectment had held that there was no reasonable require-ment proved by the plaintiff to occupy the suit shop, on the basis of personal necessity, and the defendant would have been placed in a dis-advantageous position in case a decree for ejectment was passed in favour of the plaintiff.

(2.) In this regard, first appeal was preferr-ed by the plaintiff in the Court of learned Sub-Judge (C.J.M.) Jammu, who concurrently upheld the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff had failed to prove her personal necessity, and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

(3.) Aggrieved of the said judgment and decree of the learned Sub-Judge (C.J.M.) Jammu, dated 5-3-1981, this appeal has been filed on the ground that the Courts below have committed an error in deciding that there was no reasonable necessity proved by the plaintiff to occupy the suit shop, and the finding of the trial Court, and the first appellate Court was perverse, for they have mis-read and mis-appreciated the evidence produced by the parties. Even on the grounds of plaintiff's requirement of the shop on the basis of her husband's inability to provide income for the family, the courts below have failed to apply a reasonable test for determining as to whether the plaintiffs need for the shop as bona fide or not ? In this regard, much emphasis has been laid by the plaintiff on Mst. Bega Begum's case reported in AIR 1979 SC 272.