KAMLA BAKSHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Second Appeal is directed against the decree made in the judgment dated 31-8-1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Jammu whereby Civil Ist Appeal against the ex parte judgment and decree of Sub Judge, Jammu dated 16-9-1998 for eviction of the respondent from the suit premises, was set aside.

(2.) The facts of the case relevant for the disposal of this appeal put tersely are that the appellant/plaintiff let out the suit house explicitly delineated in the title of the plaint on a monthly rental of Rs. 2000/- to the respondents/defendants in the year 1993. The tenancy was to expire on 1-1-1996. According to the plaintiff the lease expired by efflux of time as no option was exercised by the defendants/respondents for the renewal of the lease and thus were liable to be evicted from the said premises. It is further stated that since the part of the disputed tenanted premises had become inhabitable due to the negligence of the defendants/respondents, the same had to be constructed by the plaintiff after spending a considerable amount. Plaintiff also served a legal notice calling upon the tenant/respondent to vacate the premises by mid-night of 1st July, 1997 though the tenancy had expired by efflux of time, but the respondent/tenant did not vacate the premises. However, the plaintiff/appellant stated to have received a communication from the tenant/respondent dated 25-3-1997 intimating that the lease has been further extended for a period of three years at a monthly rent of Rs. 2200/- for which a lease agreement has been entered on 1-8-1996. It is also the case of the plaintiff appellant that no such agreement was executed between the parties with regard to the extension of the lease and only a matter was dispatched to the plaintiff expressing the intention to extend the lease for three years and not for five years provided that the rent is enhanced and agreement to this effect is executed. The tenant however, neither agreed the enhancement of the rent claimed by the plaintiff nor executed any lease deed, extending further lease period of three years. By another communication dated 25-9-1997 plaintiff/appellant also stated to have informed the tenant/respondent that by efflux of time their tenancy has been determined and the lease having not been extended for want of any agreement executed between the parties, the tenant appellant is required to be evicted. Plaintiff further stated that neither the rent had been paid for the last so many months nor the premises have been vacated, that gave her the cause of action to prefer the suit for ejectment of the defendants/respondents from the demised premises.

(3.) The defendants/respondents however, came to be represented by Mr. Sandeep Singh, Advocate who appeared on 31 -3-1998 and opportunity was afforded to file the written statement. Since the defendants/respondents remained unrepresented thereafter, they were proceeded ex parte by the trial Court vide order dated 3-8-1998 and ex parte evidence was ordered to be produced.