PUNNU MAL Vs. DURGA SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs second appeal who D orginally brought a suit for ejectment of the defendant from a house as well as for arrears of rent. His suit for ejectment has been dismissed by both the courts but his claim for rent to the extent of Rs. 52 has been decreed.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this suit are that the plaintiff brought the suit against the defendant with . the allegation that the defendant took on rent the suit house at Rs. 12 a month from 1st Baisakh 1997 by means of a rent deed with its previous owner S. D Chopra. Later on the rent was increased to Rs 17 a month. The plaintiff who comes from Maluchak on the border was uprooted from that place in the year 1947 and started a small shop in the city of Jammu. He has since the partition of India been living in Jammu in a rented house. The landlord of that house had served a notice of ejectment upon him. On 12th March 63 the plaintiff purchased the house for Rs. 13000. He does not own any other house. He sent a number of notices to the defendant The notices were not served upon him as he evaded service. Then another notice was got affixed on the outer door of his residence. Hence the suit for ejectment.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the defendant on a number of grounds. His plea was that he had been living in the house since 1997 (Bikrami). The plaintiff did not require the house for his occupation ; at any rate the comparative disadvantage to the defendant would be much more than the advantage to the plaintiff. He could not be ejected from this house. His brother Hoshnak Singh with his family also lived in this very house and very great hardship would be caused to the defendant if he were turned out of his house. He had not received any notice of ejectment as contemplated by law. The suit should be thrown out.