JUGAL RAJ GANDOTRA Vs. YASHPAL SAHNI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these revision petitions have been taken up for disposal together and will be disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of the same case pending between the parties before the trial Court.

(2.) Brief facts of the cases need to be noticed in order to understand the controversy involved in the case. A suit for ejectment has been filed by Yashpal Sahni (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') against M/s. Gandotra Traders (hereinafter referred to as the 'defendants') in the Court of District Judge, Jammu. Main plea for seeking ejectement against the defendants was that the shop under their tenancy was reasonably required by the plaintiff as well as his sons for their personal use and occupation and their necessity is comparatively much more greater than the defendants as till date the plaintiff has been carrying on his business at Srinagar, but now with the changed circumstances and situation prevalent in Srinagar it has become impossible to carry on trade smoothly and without any hinderance there. Even the sons of the plaintiff are without any job and need immediate settlement in their lives in order to safeguard their interests in future. This plea of the plaintiff has been controverted by the defendants in the written statement filed by them. According to them, plaintiff is carrying on number of businesses and, therefore, his requirement was not bona fide and number of other pleas were also raised by the defendants. It was specifically pleaded by the defendants that the plaintiff is running a wholesale glass business in the city of Srinagar at Maghar Mull Baug, Near Jahangir-Hotel, he was also stated to be running his glass business with the help of his son at Srinagar. In addition to this, plaintiff was stated to be running a glass shop in double-storeyed building at Pucca Danga, Jammu just opposite the premises in question where there is a big shop which comprises of two shops, on the ground floor plaintiff was stated to be doing wholesale business with his father under the name and style of M/s. Sahni Glass House and on the first floor of these premises he was stated to be doing wholesale glass business under the name and style of M/s. Sahni Agencies. Other facts were also pleaded in order to controvert the claim made by the plaintiff.

(3.) Trial Court framed issues in this case on 18-11-1991 which are to the following effect :-