KASTURI LAL Vs. BRIJ LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Civil Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by First Additional District Judge, Jammu on May 12, 1986 dismissing the appeal of the appellants and confirming the judgment and decree passed by City Judge Jammu for ejectment of the shop in dispute on December 30, 1972.

(2.) THE case has a chequered history. Respondents filed a suit for ejectment of the shop situated at Raghunath Bazar, Jammu (hereinafter referred to as the shop in dispute) on June 26, 1968 against the predecessor of the present appellants Nos. 1 to 9, Dhani Ram and Mohan Lal appellant No. 10 in the present appeal for ejectment on the ground of personal necessity and of subletting the shop in dispute. The shop was rented out on a monthly rent of Rs. 250/-. The landlord called upon the tenant on purchase of the shop in dispute to a case the premises by May 31, 1968 alleging that the premises were required by them to set up their own business. The tenant in the written statement denied the claim of the landlord on the ground of genuine requirement and also contended that there is no sub-letting. During the pendency of the suit by way of amendment in the written statement carried on October 18, 1972, a further plea was raised by the defendants that the plaintiffs are not the owner of the suit shop. The learned trial Court closing the evidence of the plaintiffs by judgment and decree dated November 27, 1968 dismissed the suit, against which an appeal was preferred before High Court, which was registered as Civil First preferred before the High Court, which was registered as Civil First Appeal No. 81 of 1968 and was allowed by Judgment and decree of the High Court dated April 28, 1969 setting aside the dismissal of the suit of the appellants, direction was given to the trial Judge to proceed with the case giving an opportunity to the parties to produce their evidence. On registration, the learned trial Court after taking evidence of the parties by his judgment and decree dated December 30, 1972 decreed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of personal necessity, whereas the ground of sub-letting covered by issue No. 3 was not pressed by the plaintiffs.

(3.) BY order dated May 28, 1986, this Second Appeal was admitted on the substantial questions of law enumerated in paragraph I of the Memo of Appeal running in sub-paras (i) to (xvi).