VIDYA DEVI Vs. SHAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Litigation initiated in the year 1981 against one Chet Ram is now being defended by his widow and children. Chet Ram who has since died and who is now represented by the appellants was a tenants of shop, details whereof have been given in the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent. This is located at Kanak Mandi, Jammu. This was under the ownership of Dharmarath Trust. A rent deed in this regard was extecuted on 9th Jan 63. The monthly rent was Rs. 25/-. This shop was later on sold to the plaintiff respondent by the Dharmarath Trust. The requisite information regarding the transfer of owner-ship right i.e. about the factum of purchase of the shop by the plaintiff respondent was conveyed to the appellants predecessor (herein-after referred to as the tenants). After having assumed the rights of ownership on the strength of a sale deed, the plaintiff respondent sought to recover the possession from the tenants. It was pleaded inter alia that the tenants did not make payment of rent to the plaintiff after the property was purchased by him. It was pleaded that they fell in arrears for a period exceeding two months. The husband of the appellant No. 1 was called upon to clear the arrears within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of notice. In addition to the calling upon him to pay the arrears, he was also called upon to vacate the premises by 10th July' 81. A reply was given to this notice. This is dated 27th July' 81. The rent was also tendered. Even though the rent was tendered first through a bank draft and later through money order but this was not accepted. This was on the plea that there was no unconditional acceptance of rights of ownership. It was thus pleaded that the tenants became defaulter as contemplated by the Jammu and Kashmir House and Shops Rent Control Act. It was further pleaded that the premises were reasonably required for the purposes of rebuilding. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff respondent wanted to raise a multi-storeyed building and had taken effective steps for getting the site plan sanctioned from the Municipal authorities at Jammu. It was also stated that the construction would be in the larger interest of public as more space would become available and this space could be utilised for commercial purposes.

(2.) The suit was resisted. It was pleaded that the question as to whether the plaintiff respondent herein had become landlord requires to be determined. A plea was also taken that there was no default on the part of Chet Ram, who as indicated above, is now represented by him legal heir. For sustaining this later plea, it was stated that a bank draft and money orders was sent; this was refused by the plaintiff. Thereafter, the rent was deposited with the Rent Controller. The alleged requirement for the purposes of rebuilding of the shop, it was pleaded does not exist and this plea on the part of plaintiff respondent, it was stated was merely a devise for seeking a decree of eviction. On the pleading of the parties, four issues came to be framed. For facility of reference, these are being reproduced below :-

(3.) Before proceeding further, the notice given by the plaintiff and the reply given by the defendant be noticed. These are being reproduced below:-