PRABH DAYAL Vs. MOHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application filed by defendant against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Jammu, dismissing his appeal against the decree of ejectment passed by the Sub -Judge on the basis of a compromise entered into between the parties on 17th August, 1962. The suit out of which this revision application has arisen was instituted by the plaintiffs landlords on 24th July, 1962 The plaintiffs in the plaint averred that they had purchased the shop for personal use and occupation and the defendant appellant was a tenant of the shop. They prayed for ejectment of the defendant from the shop on the ground of personal necessity. The defendant filed a written statement in which he mentioned that he was prepared to vacate the suit shop on the date when he obtained a decree for possession of his own shop from the Court of Sub -Judge, Jammu. In case the plaintiffs do not agree to accept the condition that the defendant should hold the shop till he obtained a decree, then he (defendant) did not accept the position taken by the plaintiffs that they required the shop for their personal use. After filing the written statement when the defendant appeared before the Court on the next date he made a statement that he was prepared to vacate the shop after two years and prayed that a decree for ejectment be made in fovour of the plaintiffs to that effect. The trial Court of Sub -Judge, Jammu, passed a decree for ejectment in favour of the plaintiffs on the basis of the compromise. It was to the effect that the defendant would vacate the suit shop after two years, or earlier if he was able to get his own shop vacated After the decree was made in favour of the plaintiffs the defendant filed an appeal against it in the Court of Additional District Judge in which it was contended that a decree for ejectment could not be passed in favour of the plaintiffs as it was contrary to the provisions of section 11 of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act. This plea did not find favour with the learned lower appellate Court and the defendants appeal was dismissed. Against the judgment of the lower appellate Court the defendant has come up in revision to this Court.

(2.) IT boils down to this that there should be express or implied admission on the part of the tenant in respect of the existence of a statutory condition which entitled the landlord to secure a decree for ejectment. Each case has to be decided on its own facts. In the present case there is abundant material to show that the tenant impliedly admitted personal necessity of the landlord in respect of the shop, as is clear from the averments in the plaint and tenants agreeing to vacate the shop after the expiry of two years. The defendant petitioner knew full well that the plaintiffs claimed eviction from the shop on the ground that they wanted it } for their personal use. He mentioned in the written statement that he would vacate the shop provided he got a decree in his favous for possession in respect of his own shop from the Court of Sub -Judge. Then on the next date the defendant agreed to vacate the shop unconditionally after the expiry of two years and prayed that a decree for ejectment be made in favour of the plaintiffs It is, therefore, clear that the defendant accepted the ground taken by the plaintiffs for ejectment from the shop, namely, the ground of personal necessity. The Houses and Shops Rent Control Act was passed for the benefit of the tenants on account of houses shortage and to prevant their eviction. In Sahabuddin versus Mohan Lal, A. I. R. 1951 All. 227 it was held by Malik C. J. as under : -

(3.) THE same view has been taken by a Full Bench of the Madras High Court in S Raja Chetty and another versus Jaganathadas Govindas and others, A. I. R. 1950 Madras 284 wherein it has laid down : -