GWASHA LAL Vs. HARJI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These references arise under the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966. The questions referred to the Full Bench are as under:-

(2.) There is a difference of opinion in this Court as to the type of suits in which Sub-section (4) of Section 12 would apply. One view is that this sub-section is limited to suits in which eviction of the tenant is claimed solely on the ground of non-payment of rent as contemplated by Clause (i) of proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11. To this effect is the view expressed by a Division Bench in Gurcharan Das v. Bodh Raj, AIR 1954 J & K 48. This view has been followed in the subsequent single Bench decisions in Wahi-ud-Din v. Sanatan Dharam Sabha, 1970 Ron CJ 916, Madan Lal v. Zahoor Hussain, 1973 J&K LR 445 and Mohd. Shaffi v. Mohi-ud-Din, 1977 J&K LR 427 : (AIR 1977 NOC 368) (J&K). Another view is that the sub-section would apply when in respect of suits in which the landlord claims eviction of the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent in addition to any other permissible ground as mentioned in Clauses (a) to (h) of the proviso to Sub-section (1) of Section 11. This view has been expressed by a learned single Judge in Premjit Singh v. Shiv Ram, 1971 J&K LR 47. Yet another view is that the sub-section would apply to the suits for eviction generally irrespective of the fact where the eviction is claimed on the ground of non-payment of rent or on any other ground mentioned in Clauses (a) to (h) or on any of those grounds in addition to the ground of non-payment of rent. This view finds place in a recent decision delivered by another learned single Judge in Sukh Ram v. Sat Paul, 1979 Kash LJ 268.

(3.) As regards the scope and ambit of enquiry under Sub-section (4) of Section 12 it has been held in the case of Sukh Ram (supra) that if the tenant denies his liability for the arrears of rent or disputes the rent at which it was last paid, the court shall determine the same but such determination shall be made "only after hearing the parties and recording evidence, if any, led by them". There is no other decision either in favour or opposing this view. The decision in the case of Sukh Ram was, however, delivered during the pendency of these references.