VIJAY KUMAR Vs. JAGBIR SAGAR JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against an order of the Sub Judge, Jammu, dated 19-12-1983, deciding issue No. 1 against the petitioner holding that the suit is maintainable. The petitioner is a tenant of the suit premises. He is in possession on the strength of a rent deed at the monthly rate of rent of Rs. 225/- for a fixed period of three years with effect from 1 st of April, 1980. The suit was filed for ejectment on the ground that the respondents who are the successors-in-interest of the landlady of the petitioner wanted it for their personal requirement. The suit having been filed in Sept.,1981 before the expiry of the contractual term fixed under the registered rent deed, the petitioner resisted the action on the ground that the suit was premature. The trial Court framed an issue as "whether the suit is premature" and entered a finding against the petitioner defendant and in favour of the plaintiffs. Hence this revision.

(2.) The trial Court found that the suit for ejectment on the basis of personal requirement could be filed and sustained during the subsistence of the period of tenancy as personal necessity could arise to the landlord at any time. Reliance was placed for this conclusion on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1979 SC 1745. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit was bad because the term of the contract bound the landlady and, therefore, the landlady should have waited till the expiry of the term to file the suit. The respondent's counsel on the other hand submits that none of the provisions of the Act forbid action for ejectment during the subsistence of the tenancy. He contends that the landlord cannot be put under an obligation to wait for the expiry of the term of tenancy to institute an action for ejectment on the ground of arrears of rent or subletting and for that reason on the ground of personal requirement also. In addition he submits that in any case the period of tenancy has now expired and the suit should be held to be maintainable.

(3.) Now I will examine the provisions of the Act and see whether the order passed by the Court below is correct. S.11(1) of the Act opens with the following: