KANTA RANI Vs. SOM DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 5-6-1973, the petitioner filed a suit for ejectment of the respondent from a shop situate at Jain Bazar Jammu on the ground of personal necessity for starting her own business. Her plea did not find favour with the Trial Court and the suit was dismissed. An appeal against the judgment and decree also failed. The petitioner has, through civil second appeal No. 65/B of 1981, questioned the judgment and decree of Sub Judge (C.J.M.), Jammu, dt/-5-3-1981, dismissing the appeal filed by her against the judgment and decree of Munsiff Sub Registrar, Jammu, dt. 7th of May, 1987. The civil second appeal was admitted to hearing on 8-7-1981. During the pendency of the appeal; the petitioner filed this application under S.12(4) of the J and K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act (hereinafter to be referred to as 'the Act'). In the application it was averred that the respondent had not paid any rent to the petitioner for the shop in question for the period following Ist of June, 1973, except for an amount of Rs. 540/-. According to the petitioner the total rent payable for the period from Ist of June, 1973, till end of June, 1981, after giving credit of Rs.540/- already received worked out to Rs. 1400/- @ Rs. 20/- per month and was due to her. She, therefore, prayed for a direction to the respondent to deposit Rs. 1400/- towards the arrears of rent and also to deposit regularly the current rent @ Rs. 20/- per month and prayed that in the event of his failure to comply with the directions, to strike off his defence.

(2.) In his objections the respondent averred that the fair rent of the shop had since been fixed as Rs.15/- per month, therefore, the application for recovery of arrears of rent or for direction for depositing the future rent @ Rs. 20/- per month is not tenable. It was further maintained that the petitioner sought to recover time barred arrears of rent through the application under Sec. 12(4) of the Act, which is not permissible in law.

(3.) The parties did not lead any evidence in support of their respective contentions but appearing before the court the following facts were admitted by learned counsel for the parties: