TILAK RAJ Vs. CUSTODIAN, JAMMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Cl. 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court (Kotwal J.) in writ petition No. 59 of 1974 dismissing the petition of the appellant against the order of eviction of respondent No: 1.

(2.) BRIEFLY speaking the facts of the case are: The appeallant was leased out evacuee shop No. 36 situated in Rajinder Bazar Jammu by respondent No.: 1 (the custodian) on a monthly rent of Rs. 25/ -. The appellant fell in arrears. A notice was issued to him by respondent No. 1 to pay the amount of arrears of rent. According to the appellant, the arrears were paid by him but even then the Custodian, enhanced the rent which was not accepted by the appellant. As a result of the controversy between the appellant and the custodian, the latter passed an order of eviction of of the appellant from the premises in question. The order of termination of lease proceeded on the ground that the appellant was in arrears and that he was not using the shop for the purpose for which it had actually been let out to him. Challenging this order, of the Custodian the appellant filed a writ petition which was heard by the learned Single Judge. Before him it was debated that the impugned order was passed without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard in the matter, that no service of any prior notice was effected on the petitioner, even the mode of service of the notice was defective and was violative of Rule 18 of the Rules made under the Evacuee Administration of Property Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "The Evacuee Act"), that the petitioner has been paying rent regularly to respondent No. 1 even after the period fixed in the rent note had expired and by virtue of operation of section 116 of the T. P. Act he had become a tenant holding over. The appellant could not be ejected from the premises except on one of the grounds mentioned in Section 11 of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses arid Shops Rent Control Act, (hereinafter called as "The Rent Control Act"), the petitioner did not infringe any Rule of the Evacuee Act as he had done nothing contrary to the terms of the lease deed.

(3.) THE petition was resisted on a number, of grounds, namely, that the petitioner had fallen in arrears and had failed to clear these, that a notice was issued to the petitioner on 17 -5 -1974, calling upon him to show cause as to why his lease should not be cancelled and further enhanced rent at the rate .of Rs. 300/ - per month be not charged from him with the effect 1 -5 -1974: that the petitioner did not appear before the Custodian in response to the notice issued to him on 17 -4 -1974 and his tenancy was, therefore, terminated. It was affirmed that the Rent Control Act did not apply to the evacuee property governed by the Evacuee Act. It was also denied that the appellant had acquired the status of a tenant holding over. It was not admitted that the show cause notice served upon the appellant was not reasonable or proper.