BISHANDAS Vs. DHARAMVIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DHARAMVIR landlord -deceased, respondent herein, filed a suit for ejectment of Bishandas, tenant, appellant here in, from his house situated in Mohalla Gujran, Kanakmandi, Jammu on the basis of defaults committed by the Tenant in deposit of rent, his personal necessity to occupy the house and far its reconstruction. The suit was resisted by the appellant on various grounds; firstly that the house being an evacuee property, Custodian was a necessary party and further that the house was not required by the landlord either for personal necessity or reconstruction and in fact he wanted to dispose of the house after his eviction therefrom.

(2.) ON the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed by the Trial court : -

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and the perused the record before me. The finding of the Trial court in regard to issue Nos1, 3, and 3 -A was in favour of the plaintiff landlord. Whereas other issues were decided in favour of the defendant -tenant. In first appellate court, Dharamvir landlord filled an application under section. 12(4) of the J&K Houses and shops rent control act. (for short Act. hereafter), for issuing a direction to defendant tenant to pay arrears of rent and on January -20, 1981 said Court after allowing the Application of the landlord, directed the tenant to deposit Rs. 760/ - plus 140/ - as arrears of rent with in a period of fifteen days, with further direction to deposite monthly rent by the day of every successive month. Bishan Dass, tenant, aggrieved by that order filled a revision petition before this court on may 2, 1989 issued a direction to Bishan Dass tenant to deposite Rs. 1800/ -. As arrears of rent within a period of fifteen days and further to deposite monthly rent of Rs. 20/ - per month by 15th day of every successive month, failing which necessary consequence as envisaged under section 12 (4) of the Act would follow. Appellant - tenant did not comply with the order of this court even as such his defence against ejectment was struck out appellate court then posted the case for arguments on May, 25, 1985. When the appellant absented himself and his counsel also did not appear. The court then heard the appeal in absence of the appellant herein.