KRISHEN Vs. BIHARI LAL SURI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arised out of a suit for ejectment and arrears of rent. The subject of the suit is one room of a building known as Tavela Dewan Thakur Dass situate in the Jammu city. Plaintiff averred that the disputed room was rented out to the defendant, Durga Dass, in the year 1955 at a monthly rental of Rs. 2.50 by the original owners of the house, Dewan Jaspat Rai Lakhpat Rai, who subsequently sold it to him by virtue of a registered sale deed dated 14 -1 -1964. The plaintiff further averred that the house including the disputed room was in a dilapidated condition and might collapse, adding, that he wanted to rebuild it in order to provide accommodation to his real brother who was in need thereof. He also averred that the defendant was in arrears as regards the payment of rent for a period of thirty months and, added that he had committed three defaults of two months each within a period of eighteen months. On these grounds he claimed a decree for ejectment and arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 75/ -.

(2.) IN reply the defendant denied that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, adding, that he had never executed any rent deed and if, at all, the vendor had obtained one, it was based on fraud and mis -representation. He pleaded that he was the owner of the disputed room which he had constructed over Nazool area at his own cost and, in the alternative, claimed title on the basis of adverse possession. He also pleaded that, in any case, he was not liable to ejectment on the alleged grounds.

(3.) THE trial court found that the relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between the parties. Even so the court went into the question of title and adverse possession and found that the title originally belonged to Dawan Jaspat Raj and Dewan Lakhpat Raj and. after them, to the plaintiff as vendee from them, and added that defendants adverse possession was not proved. On these findings the trial court, by its judgment dated 14 -7 -1970, dismissed the suit. The plaintiff appealed. During the pendency of the appeal the defendant died and his legal representatives were brought on record. In the appeal the learned Sub -Judge, Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu found that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties and remanded the case to the trial court with the direction that it should raise issue, which it had omitted to do previously, as regards the pleas based on personal necessity, rebuilding and three defaults in the payment of rent, afford opportunity to the parties to produce evidence on those issues and then decide the case afresh. On revision, the point urged before this court was that the lower appellate court could not have remanded the whole case but it should have appropriately framed the necessary issues and asked the trial court to give its finding on the same and then decided the matter itself. The argument found favour with this court and the court made a direction accordingly. Pursuant to this direction the lower appellate court framed the necessary issues and directed the trial court to give its finding on the same. The trial court found that the disputed room was not reasonably required by the plaintiff for his personal use but that he required it for rebuilding and added, that the defendant had committed three defaults of two months each within a period of eighteen months in regard to the payment of rent. The lower appellate court agreed with these findings and decreed the suit on 18 -3 -1974. Hence this second appeal.