AMAR NATH Vs. HANS RAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The defendant, in a suit for ejectment, instituted by the respondent in the Court of Munsiff, R. S. Pura, on the ground that the premises were reasonably required for his occupation, is the appellant The suit was resisted by the defendant contending that the grounds put forward were a ruse to evict him. The suit was originally dismissed. In appeal, the appellate Court remanded the case to the trial Court for fresh consideration of the issues involved. The trial Court by its judgment dt. 13-6-1981 held against the plaintiff on the ground of personal requirement for occupation. However, it held that the plaintiff required the premises for re-building and a decree for ejectment was passed. The trial Court directed the plaintiff to offer to the defendant the building after rebuilding. The defendant preferred an appeal against the decree for ejectment. The plaintiff filed a cross appeal against the finding about personal requirement. The appellate Court dismissed the appeal and the memorandum of cross- objections but vacated the direction to the plaintiff to offer the building to the defendant on reasonable rent after re-construction. Hence the second appeal.

(2.) The appellant's counsel submits that the Court below committed an error of law in vacating the direction made by the trial Court in conformity with the amended Section 13(3) of the J&K Houses and Shops. Rent Control Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act. According to him, when the ground of personal requirement was found against, and the decree was only on the basis of requirement for re-building, the landlord should be directed to offer the building to the tenant after rebuilding as contained in Section 13(3) and the Court below went wrong in vacating the said direction.

(3.) Respondent's Counsel, on the other hand submits that the direction to the landlord to offer the building to the evicted tenant comes in only when the landlord intends to let it out. If he intends to occupy it the question of offering the building to the tenant does not arise.