MUNSHI RAM Vs. SAIN DASS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal preferred by the defendant in a suit for ejectment. The respondent -landlord instituted a suit in ejectment in the court of the Munsiff at Ranbirsingh -pura on the ground that he required the house for his own occupation and the defendant did not vacate it in spite of repeated demands orally as well as by registered notice. The tenant was also in arrears with rent and a decree therefore was asked for.

(2.) THE suit house was put in the possession of the tenant in two instalments. At first the two rooms in the house were let out to him on 15th Katik 2005 on a monthly rent of Rs. 3/ -, and a rent deed was executed by the tenant to evidence this transaction. Subsequently in the month of Sawan possession of the verandah of the house was also handed over to the tenant on his undertaking to pay a consolidated rent of Rs. 6/ - a month for the entire premises. The trial court declined to give a decree for ejectment mainly on the ground that it was not satisfied on the evidence that the plaintiff required the house for his own occupation. On appeal by the landlord, the Addl. District -Judge at Jammu reversed the judgment of the trial court and passed a decree in ejectment of the tenant. The tenant has come up in second appeal to canvass the correctness of the decision of the lower appellate court.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant -tenant has raised two questions of law. The first is that the suit is bad for want of a proper notice to quit under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. The other is that even if the notice given by the plaintiff is assumed to be good that can have the effect of terminating only one tenancy in respect of a portion of the suit house and not the other tenancy in respect of the other portion of the house. On facts, he urges that the evidence on the side of the landlord does not establish that he requires the house for his own occupation.