L RAJ KUMAR Vs. GH MOHD KOCHEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision application directed against the Older of the City Munsiff Srinagar dated the 18th December 1957. The facts which gave rise to this application briefly stated are these. Ghulam Mohd. Kochey made an application under Circular No. 136 sanctioned under State Council Resolution No. 25 dated 27th January 1894 seeking possession of the shop on the grounds that Raj Kumar who was his tenant had left Srinagar about four months back without giving any notice to him and that the shop had been locked by him and his whereabouts were not known. The learned Munsiff by his order dated the 10th December 1957 directed GhvJam Mohd. Kochey to deposit Rs. 5/ - in order that a notice be issued in Martand Srinagar calling upon Raj Kumar to show cause why the lock may not be broken open and the possession of the shop handed over to Ghulam Mohd. Kochey. The notice appeared in the Martand on the 14th December and the date of appearance of the tenant was fixed as the 18th December. It appears that on the 18th December one Niranjan Lal Jain, a close relation of the tenant appeared before the Court and made an application that the tenant had gone to Amritsar to buy some goods for his shop and that he was incharge of the shop and was responsible to pay the arrears of rent. The learned Munsif, without taking notice of this application, ordered that the lock be broken and the possession of the shop handed over to Ghulam Mohd. Kochey in presence of respectable persons and that a list of the articles found in the shop be prepared. The next date fixed in the case was 31st December 1957.

(2.) IN pursuance of the order of the Munsiff the lock of the shop was broken open and the possession thereof was handed over to Ghulam Mohd. Kochey on the 20th December 1957. Raj Kumar made an application for obtaining the copy of the order on the 23rd December 1957 and presented the present revision application against that order in this court on the

(3.) RD January 1958. 3 In this application it is argued on behalf of the petitioner that the learned Munsiff has acted in hot haste in handing over the possession to the respondent. It is further argued that Circular No. 136 under which this application was made by the landlord was not applicable to shops but was only applicable to houses and lastly that S. 11 of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act has repealed Circular No. 136 and the learned Munsiff ought not to have taken action under that Circular.