MADAN LAL Vs. JAGDISH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of District Judge Udhampur, whereby he has confirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court (Sub Judge) Udhampur. As a result of the findings of two courts, the suit of the appellant for eviction of respondent was dismissed.

(2.) RESUME of the facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal is given as under. Appellant has filed a suit for eviction against the respondent in respect of the suit property described in the plaint situated in Udhampur town plaintiff had averred that he had a large family dependent on him and his source of income was very meagre. He was working on a monthly salary of Rs. 150/ - as wages, from his father where he was working. He had stated that he wanted to run his is own business in the shop to augment his income and therefore he needed the shop reasonable for his own use. The suit was contested by the respondent. The trial court after framing issues recorded evidence of the parties and came to the conclusion that the appellant had no reasonable requirement of the shop in question, therefore his suit was dismissed. On appeal these findings were confirmed.

(3.) MR . Thakur appearing for the appellant has assailed the findings of the courts below and contended that the approach adopted by the courts below was not consistent with the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Bega Begum Vs. Abdul Ahad Khan reported in AIR 1979 S.C. 272. Scope and ambit of some expressions used in section 11 (1) (h) of the J&K Houses and Shops Rent control Act was explained by the Supreme Court in the said authority and it was held that where the courts have adopted a legally wrong approach and have given not correct meaning to the words Ëœreasonable requirementâ„¢, the Supreme Court would intervene in order to prevent grave and substantial injustice being done to the plaintiff -landlords.