BISHAMBER DASS ALIA GIRDHARI LAL Vs. TARA CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this Civil Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant prays for the setting aside of the judgment and decree passed by learned District Judge, Udhampur on January 20 975 in Civil Appeal No. 27 of 1971 and to restore the judgment and decree passed by learned Sub -Judge, Udhampur in File No. 175/Civil of 1969 dated June 30, 1971, by which the suit of the plaintiff -respondent herein was dismissed In the High Court this is a second round of litigation On appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the appellant earlier against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge in favour of the respondent by setting a side the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, His Lordship the then Chief Justice Honble Mr. Justice S. M. F. Ali, as he then was, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate Court and remanded the case to the learned District Judge with a direction for allowing an opportunity to the appellant/defendant to adduce evidence in rebuttal of the document admitted on record after taking such evidence as may be adduced. In pursuance of the remand order, the learned District Judge allowed the appellant/defendant to lead evidence. The learned District Judge after perusal of the evidence adduced by the respective parties allowed the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court decreed the suit of respondent/landlord for ejectment against the present appellant.

(2.) IT is not disputed that plaintiff Tara Chand, respondent herein filed a suit for ejectment of the appellant from the suit shop and for the recovery of arrears of rent of Rs 75/ - at the rate of Rs. 15/ - per month and that he provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, l966 is not applicable at the place where the shop in dispute in Garhi is situated Before the trial Court, the suit was contested by the appellant on the ground that he is not the tenant of the respondent of the suit shop, no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiff and the defendant and that he procured the suit shop from one Cheman Lal Kabadi. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: - 1) Whether the defendant has taken on lease the suit shop at the rate of Rs. 15/per month? O P. P 2) Whether the plaintiff has given a notice for ejectment to the defendant? O. P. P

(3.) ) How much money is due from the defendant as rent O P. P