SUBHASH CHANDER Vs. KRISHAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING lost the battle all along the line, the defendant has come up in second appeal to this court against the judgment of Second Additional District Judge, Jammu, whereby he has confirmed the decree for ejectment passed against him by City Judge, Jammu,

(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent has brought a suit for ejectment against the defendant on the ground of personal necessity, which pertains to a shop situated at Old Hospital Road, Jammu. The suit has been resisted on the ground that no such necessity exists and that the notice for ejectment served upon the defendant -appellant is not in accordance with law. On both grounds the trial court has found in favour of the respondent, and his judgment has been confirmed by the lower appellate court, hence the second appeal Mr. Sethi has raised two contentions in this appeal. One, that reasonable requirement of the respondent is not proved, and two, that the notice of ejectment is not in accordance with the provisions of Sec: 106 of the Transfer of Property Act.

(3.) Both the courts below have on an objective appreciation of the evidence come to a conclusion that the respondent reasonably requires the suit shop for continuing his existing business. They have concurrently found that the shoo in which he is presently doing his business of selling shoes is not comodious enough to cope with its increasing volume and he requires it for promoting his business which contains an element of must have in it. They have also held that the appellant is having two more shops in his occupation near the suit shop, besides an Ahata near Gulab Bhawan, which provide more than enough accommodation to him for doing his furniture business satisfactorily, and that the appellant in fact no more needs the suit shop for his business. They have further found that the resultant advantage to the respondent would be far greater than the resultant disadvantage to the appellant in case a decree is passed in favour of the former. These findings are findings of fact, based upon proper appreciation of evidence which should be ordinarily binding on this court. Mr. Sethi has, however, contended that whether or not a landlord requires " a suit premises for his personal use is not merely a question of fact, but is a mixed question of law and fact. To support his argument he has referred to three decisions viz. Smt. Soni Kamla Soni Vs. Ruplal Mehra, 1969 N. S. C. 186, Satyandra Singh Vs. Murarilal, 1971 R. C. J. 414 and Kamal Kishore Vs. Naryan Dass, 1972 R. C. J. 346.