CHAJJU RAM Vs. JAGDISH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RESPONDENTS suit for ejectment of a shop against the appellants was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal the judgment and decree of the trial court was reversed by the 1st. Appellate court and suit for ejectment was decreed. The defendants have come up in second appeal to this court.

(2.) THE plaintiff had brought a suit for ejectment on the ground that the suit shop had fallen to his share by virtue of an arbitration award. Plaintiffs brother Lakshmi Chand before the arbitration award had given the suit shop on rent to the defendant No. 1 on a monthly rent of Rs. 14/ - with effect from Har 2004 (Bk). The plaintiff wanted to reconstruct the suit shop to increase the accommodation so as to make it more advantageous for use. Therefore, he claimed a decree for ejectment. The other ground on which the decree for ejectment was claimed was that of sub -letting. It was contended that the defendant No. 1 had sub -let the suit shop to his brother defendant No. 2. which fact has rendered the defendant liable for ejectment. The defendants had denied the ownership as also the plaintiffs claim of ejectment. The trial court framed the following issues in the suit:

(3.) ISSUE No 1 relating to the ownership was decided in favour of the plaintiff Issue No. 2 regarding subletting was decided against the plaintiff in favour of the defendants. Issue No. 3. also was decided against the plaintiff and it was held that plaintiff does not want to reconstruct the shop along with its adjoining shop. Other issues consequently had paled into insignificance because the necessity for reconstruction was repelled by the trial Court. The 1st appellate court has reversed the finding on issue regarding subletting. It held that the defendant No. 1 had sub let the suit shop to his brother defendant No. 2, therefore both the defendants were liable to be ejected. The 1st appellate court has concluded that the original tenant in this case has parted with the whole tenanted accommodation since long and he has utterly failed to explain as to in what capacity defendant No. 2 was occupying the shop in question Therefore it was concluded that the defendant No. 1 has sublet the shop to defendant No. 2 and findings on issue No 2 were reversed as a result of which decree for ejectment was granted to the plaintiff On other issue it agreed with the findings of the trial court in substance.