MADAN LAL Vs. JAGDISH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by District Judge, Udhampur, on 12-5-1981 thereby upholding the decree of the trial Court dated 16-6-1979, whereby the suit of the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff') had been dismissed.

(2.) This case has a chequered history and the facts relevant for determination of the present appeal need to be briefly referred to.

(3.) Plaintiff filed a suit against the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant') for ejectment from the premises in question which consists of one shop, verandah and an adjacent room. So far description of the tenanted premises and/or relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties is concerned, it is not in dispute. Similarly, rate of rent being Rs. 92/- per month is also not in dispute. Premises in question having been let out by means of a written document is also not in dispute between the parties, as would be seen from the pleadings filed by both of them during the course of trial in the Court below. Ejectment was claimed by the plaintiff on the plea that after partition of properties having taken place between himself and his father Dina Nath, tenanted premises fell to his share which were let out to the defendant vide lease deed dated 1-8-1966 for a fixed term of eleven months. Since plaintiff had a large family to look after dependent on him and his income was very meagre from his employment at his father's shop where he was drawing Rs. 150/- per month as wages, as such the premises in question were required by him for his requirement. Such requirement was also aimed at augmenting his income where he wants to run some business after the ejectment of the defendant. It was also the case of the plaintiff that tenancy of the defendant stood terminated and on his failure to hand over possession (sic) necessity of filing the suit. Claim made by the plaintiff was contested and resisted by the defendant, who while admitting the execution of the rent note and creation of tenancy disputed that the premises were reasonably required by the plaintiff for own use and occupation, factum of family partition as claimed by the plaintiff, as also the receipt of alleged notice, both facts were denied.