OM PRAKASH Vs. JAGDISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS suit for ejectment against the defendants is dismissed by the trial court by its judgment and decree that 11 -10 -1976. On appeal the District Judge reversed the finding on issue No 4 which related to the subletting of a portion of shop by defendants 1 to 7 in favour of defendant No. 8 and consequently the suit for ejectment was decreed against the appellants in favour of the respondent -

(2.) PLAINTIFFS suit was that portion of shop was sublet by defendants 1 to 7 in favour of defendant No. 8 who was paying rent to defendants 1 to 7.The shop was needed by the plaintiffs for reconstruction to achieve public benefit. The defendants in their written statement had denied the allegations of subletting as also the plea regarding the reasonable requirement of the shop for reconstruction. The parties led evidence. Courts below have found that there was no reasonable requirement to the landlord to have the shop vacated for reconstruction to achieve public benefit. In this regard there is a concurrent finding of fact. It is accordingly found by the two courts below that reconstruction is not for the public benefit. on the other hand it will reduce the size of the shop considerably. It may be stated that under the provisions of Ribbon Development Act, while reconstructing the shop in question, plaintiff is required to leave a sepecified distance from the centre of the road. After leaving that distance the size of the shop is reduced to half of its present size. Therefore two courts were of the opinion that no public benefit is to be achieved by reconstruction. On the other hand the accommodation of the shop is going to shrink which will be disadvantageous to the tenant as also to the landlord. The two courts below have relied on evidence as also on documents and on the provisions of Ribbon Development Act in repelling the contention of the landlord regarding reasonable requirement of the shop for the reconstruction. So the finding on this issue has become final which cannot be disturbed in the second appeal.

(3.) MR . Sharma appearing for the respondent -landlord has submitted that finding on issue regarding reconstruction of the shop may be reopened He submits that the issue is to be decided in the light of section 11 (h) of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act and the provisions of Ribbon Development Act should not cause any obstruction in the way of the landlord to seek the relief of eviction on the ground of requirement of the shop for reconstruction. He submits that the defendants had not pleaded bar to reconstruction on the basis of provisions of Ribbon Development Act. That was introduced at the argument stage.