HARJEET SINGH Vs. PARSHOTAM DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are the four civil second appeals against the common judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jammu dated 25th of August, 1976 affirming the judgment and decree for ejectment of the trial court of Sub Judge, Jammu dated 15 -4 -1974 in respect of a house situate in Jammu in occupation of the appellants as tenants.

(2.) SPEAKING in brief the facts of the case are that the appellants were the tenants of one Sardar Randhir Singh and they occupied different sets of rooms in the same building on payment of monthly rent. The house was purchased by Shri Parshotam Dass the plaintiff respondent from S. Randhir Singh. Afterwards the plaintiff respondent filed four separate suits for ejectment against the four set of defendants tenants. The plaintiff sought eviction of the defendants appellants on two fold grounds: (1) that the plaintiff respondent required the demised premises for his own use and occupation; and (2) that the demised premises were required by him for the purpose of rebuilding. The plaintiff respondent further averred that he served notices on the defendants for vacating the premises and determining the tenancy but the defendants failed to comply with these notices. The defendants, however, denied the allegations of the plaintiff. They resisted the suit on all the grounds and controverted the allegations made by the plaintiff. The following issues were raised in the case: -

(3.) BOTH the courts below have held that the plaintiff is the owner of the building and the appellants are his tenants; that the plaintiff respondent reasonably requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation and also that the demised premises are required by him for the purpose of rebuilding. They have also held that valid notices terminating the tenancy were issued to the defendants. The defendants, however, refused to acknowledge the notices and failed to comply with the same. On these findings the trial court decreed the plaintiffs suit which decree was affirmed in the first appeal by the District Judge. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the courts below the appellants have come up in further appeal to this court.