TILAK CHAND JAIN Vs. KANTA RANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by Sub-Judge (C.J.M.), Jammu on March, 1981 decreeing the suit of the respondent for ejectment of the shop in dispute situated at Jain Bazar, Jammu by reversing the judgment and decree passed by Munsiff (Sub-Registrar), Jammu on May 7, 1977, whereby the suit of the respondent was dismissed on both the grounds, which were alleged by the respondent in her suit for ejectment of the appellants.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that respondent filed the suit for ejectment against the appellants from the shop (hereinafter called the disputed shop) situated at Jain Bazar, Jammu, of which she claimed himself to be the owner on the basis of a transfer deed executed in her favour by Lata Amar Nath father-in-law of the respondent, which was registered on August 27, 1972. Initially the shop in dispute was leased out by way of a rent note dated September 26, 1984 commencing with effect from October 1, 1964 at the monthly rent of Rs. 40/- signed and executed by Shri Tilak Chand Jain representing firm M/s. Tilak Chand Jain Ravi Kumar. The said rent deed was executed for a period of eleven months. Appellant No. 1 Tilak Chand Jain was impleaded as defendant No. 2, Appellant as defendant No. 3 and Appellant No. 3 as defendant No. 1 in the suit filed before the trial court. The suit was filed on twin grounds as stated in plaint alleging that defendants 1 and 2 sub-let the disputed shop in favour of defendant No. 3 for the last over four years prior to the institution of the suit, while the said shop was in the ownership of the original lessor Lala Amar Nath Jain. The other ground stated was that the respondent/plaintiff needed the shop for carrying on her own business of hosiery and elastic manufacturing in the disputed shop for which she was adequate funds as well. It was also stated that the need of the plaintiff is far more pressing than that of the defendants.

(3.) BOTH the parties led evidence before the Trial Court to prove their rival contentions on the issues by the learned Trial Court. On examining the statements of the witnesses, whose evidence is fully discussed in detail by the learned trial Judge, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by judgment and decree dated May 7, 1977 holding that the respondent/plaintiff failed to prove the sub-letting and also her need requiring the ejectment of the shop for the purposes of starting her business in the disputed shop.