CHHAJU MAL DAYA RAM (FIRM) Vs. OM PARKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal arises out of an ejectment suit instituted by the respondents against the appellant in the court of the Munsiff at Jammu. The ground for eviction was that the respondents landlords required that suit shop premises for their own use as provided in S. 111 h of the Rent Control Act. The tenancy was alleged to have been duly determined by a notice to quit under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(2.) THE appellant -tenant resisted the action on the grounds mat the respondents did not require the suit premises for their own occupation and that the tenancy was not terminated by a valid notice to quit.

(3.) THE trial court dismissed the suit. On appeal the Addl. District Judge at Jammu reversed the decision of the trial court and gave judgment for plaintiffs. The aggrieved tenant carried the matter in a second appeal, and AlI J. confirmed the finding of the lower appellate court that the landlords reasonably required the suit premises for their own use. But he remanded the case to the District Judge at Jammu for a fresh decision on I the question of the validity of the notice to quit. The District Judge who heard the case afresh in remand, arrived at the finding that the notice to quit was valid, and consequently passed a decree in ejectment against the tenant. The tenant law again come to this court in second appeal.