SABIR HAJJAM Vs. SHEIKH AB AZIZ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a civil second appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Baramulla, dated 12 -1 - 1976 affirming the Judgment and decree of the Sub Judge. Baramulla, date 30 -3 -1974, in a suit for possession of a shop as described in the plaint and also for recovery of the Rs 2100/ - for use and occupation of the premises.

(2.) THE appellant was in possession of a shop in a building belonging to the plaintiff as a tenant on a yearly rent of Rs. 450/ - till January 1966 when the building was gutted by fire. There - after the building was reconstructed. The plaintiff averred that the defendant -appellant forcibly occupied the shop on the pretext that the shop had been alloted to him by the Deputy Commissioner, Baramulla. Enquiries, revealed, that no such orders were issued by the DC Baramulla and the shop was not allotted to the defendant by the Deputy Commissioner, The plaintiff asked the appellant to vacate the shop. On his refusal to do so, the plaintiff brought the suit for possession in respect of the shop and also for the recovery of Rs 2100/ -on account of the use and occupation of the said shop at the rate of Rs 700/ - per annum from 16 -3 -1967 to 16 -3 -1970. The plaintiff inter -alia stated that as the building was gutted in fire, therefore, the tenancy had come to an end. He also claimed the shop for his personal requirement.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the defendant -appellant inter -alia on the ground that he was a tenent, and, therefore, the present suit was not maintainable. He pleaded that after the break out of fire, the fire -sufferers and landlord inclusive of the plaintiff were afforded relief in the shape of timber and cash by the Government on the express condition that the landlord would lease out their newly reconstructed shops to their original tenants. Accordingly the plaintiff inducted the appellant as tenant in the shop and an amount of Rs 300/ - was paid to the plaintiff by the appellants advance towards the rent which was remitted to the respondent through money order. A further amount of rent was paid to the plaintiff which was accepted by "him. It was denied that the shop was required by the plaintiff for the personal requirement.