AMAR NATH AND ORS Vs. MEHMAN WANTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil second appeal which is directed against the judgment and decree dated January 9, 1973 of the learned District Judge, Jammu arises out of a suit brought by the respondent against the appellants herein for ejectment of the latter from a shop situate in New Market, Raghunath Bazar Jammu.

(2.) The case of the plaintiff respondent was that M/s Amar Nath Krishan Lal, defendant-appellant No. 1 got the aforesaid shop from her through Shri Krishan Lal defendant-appellant No. 3 on a monthly rental of Rs. 43/- with effect from Baisakh 1, 2020 (Samvat) for a period of 11 months vide rent note Ex. P.A. dated August 25, 1963 and that the defendants were liable to be evicted from the aforesaid premises as the income of defendant No. 1 being in excess of Rs. 20,000/- per annum, the tenancy was not governed by the provisions of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act and had been validly terminated by a lawful notice. The plaintiff also sought the eviction of the defendants on two further grounds namely, that defendant No. 1 had sublet the shop to defendant No. 2 or had transferred its tenancy rights to defendant Me 2 and that defendant No. 1 had committed more than three defaults in payment of rent and had not paid the same despite notice. The plaintiff also claimed Rs. 20/- on account of arrears of rent upto the end of Phagan, 2026 (Samvat) and Rs. 250/- as compensation for use and occupation of the premises for Chet, 2026, making a total of Rs. 270/-.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants appellants on a number of grounds. They, inter alia, averred that the shop in question was got by defendant No. 3 in his individual capacity from the plaintiff, that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 had nothing to do with the shop, that defendant No. 1 was not the tenant of the plaintiff nor did the income of defendant No. 1 or of defendant No 3 exceed Rs. 20,000/- per annum, that the tenancy was governed by provisions of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, that defendant No. 3 was carrying on partnership business on the premises and had not sublet the same to defendant No. 2 and that defendant No. 3 had not committed any default in payment of rent and had been regularly depositing the same in the office of the Rent Controller.