HANSRAJ Vs. CHAMAN LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONTROVERSY in this Civil Second Appeal lies in a narrow compass, which centres round the factum of service as well as Validity of the notice for ejectment alleged to have been served by the plaintiff -appellant on the defendant -respondent.

(2.) THE appellant brought a suit for ejectment against the respondent in respect of a shop be the ground of personal requirement alleging that the latterâ„¢s tenancy had been terminated by him by serving a notice for ejectment on him. The suit was resisted inter alia on the grounds that the appellant did not reasonably require the shop for his personal use and that the tenancy had not been validly determined inasmuch as neither any notice for ejectment was served upon the respondent nor was the same in accordance with law. The trial court found in favour of the appellant do both the pleas and decreed his suit. An appeal from the said decree was taken by the respondent to District Judge, Jammu, wherein only one point was urged that the appellant had failed to prove that he had served a notice on the respondent terminating his tenancy. This argument found favour with the District Judge, who consequently allowed the appeal and dismissed the appellants suit.

(3.) IT is common ground that the suit of which this appeal has arisen is governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966, (hereinafter the State Act). Mr. Gupta, appearing for the appellant, has raised a twofold argument in support of the appeal. His first contention is that no notice was required to be served upon the respondent in terms of Sec. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act and his second contention is that if at all any such notice was necessary, the same had in fact been served upon him and the District Judge was not right in holding that it was not so served. In support of his first contention he has relied upon a recent Supreme Court decision in V. Dhanapal Ghettier Vs. Yasodii Ammal, 1979 (11) R.C.J. 358.