SHAKUNTALA DEVI Vs. JAGDISH CHANDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a Second Civil Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25-11-1997 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Jammu whereby the appeal of the appellants against the judgment and decree dated 31-5-1997 of the Court of first instance i.e. City Judge, Jammu was dismissed. The substantial questions of law formulated in the memo of appeal are to the following effect :(1) Whether the service of notice of ejectment on one of the legal heirs of the original tenant can be a service of notice on all the tenants and in this manner the tenancy stands terminated?(2) In a suit for ejectment whether without examining the person for whom the premises are required a decree passed for personal requirement is valid?(3) Whether the suit for ejectment can be filed in respect of only one room when the tenancy comprised of rooms, terrace, kitchan as well as bath room.?

(2.) The relevant facts of the case are that respondents No. 1 and 2 instituted a suit for ejectment against respondent No. 3, Pardeep Singh for vacation of one room measuring 12 x 15' situate in first floor of the house from the demised premises as delineated in the plaint and on the grounds of personal necessity, three dafaults and re-construction. The arrears of rent were also claimed to the tune of Rs. 280/- at the rate of Rs. 20/- PM w.e.f. January, 1988 till February, 1989. In the plaint it was averred that respondents No. 1 and 2 had let out the room in question at a monthly rent of Rs. 20/- to respondent No. 3 who had been paying regular rent up to December, 1987 but stopped paying the rent w.e.f. Jan., 1988 till date. He was served a notice but even after committing three defaults of two months each in the payment of rent he did not vacate the premises and neither paid the rent. The premises were required for personal use and occupation and the requirement of respondents was reasonable and much greater as compared to the requirement of respondent No. 3. The premises were stated to be in dilapidated condition which required re-building and the respondents had the capacity to construct the same.

(3.) The appellants herein approached the trial Court to be impleaded as party and they were arrayed as defendants (vide order dated 16-8-1990). Respondent No. 3 (Pardeep Singh) had already filed the written statement before appellant No. 1 (Shakuntala Devi) filed her written statement. Respondent No. 3 Pardeep Singh had pleaded that the suit was bad for non-joinder of the appellants as a party and respondents No. 1 and 2 were not the owners, the suit was wrongly valued. He had also pleaded that before receiving the notice he had paid the rent till August, 1988 and only one month's rent i.e. for September, 1988 was outstanding. Respondents No. 1 and 2 had approached him for compromise and accepted the rent till ending February 1989 and thus no rent was payable. It was also denied that room was required for personal necessity by respondents No. 1 and 2. He had pleaded that he is a poor Conductor in S.R.T.C. and his necessity to have the room was much more than that of respondents No. 1 and 2. The re-construction of the room in question was also denied. The appellant Shakuntala Devi in her written statement had pleaded that the demised premises along with the stair-case, terrace, kitchen, bath-room and a Khurra had been obtained on rent by her husband Gulab Singh and she denied that only one room was taken on rent. The rent was sent w.e.f. January, 1988 till March, 1990 through Moneyorder but respondents No. 1 and 2 had refused to receive the same. She had also taken the plea that there was no personal necessity and she had not been served with a notice of ejectment and no defaults were committed. It was also denied that room was in a dilapidated condition and require re-building.