SAVITRI DEVI Vs. BHUSHAN CHANDER JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ejectment of the respondent-tenant from a house situated in the City of Jammu was sought by the plaintiff-appellant on the ground of her personal requirement and the three legal defaults in the payment of rent within the meaning of provisions of J and K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 'hereinafter called the Act'. It was pleaded by the plaintiff that the suit house was leased out to the defendant-respondent vide rent deed dated 27-12-1965 on a monthly rent of Rs. 135.00 with effect from 8-11-1965. The defendant did not pay the rent for a period of more than 3 years with the result that a notice was served upon him demanding the payment of the arrears of rent within the statutory period. The defendant-tenant did not pay any rent to the plaintiff despite notice. The suit premises were also claimed to be required by the plaintiff for her personal use and occupation as she was intending to marry her son and daughter for which she required the additional accommodation. It was submitted that defendant owned his own house an the vicinity and was not vacating the premises with the object of harassing the plaintiff. The suit of the plaintiff was resisted by the respondent-defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was not entitled to the grant of any relief and the demand of rent for more than three years was incorrect and insufficient within the meaning of S. 11 (1) of the Act. It was submitted that the rent deed produced by the plaintiff did not consist of full stamp papers as at the time of execution of the rent deed the stamp papers worth Rs. 20.00 were attached. It was submitted that the one leaf of the stamp paper was withheld deliberately by the plaintiff to suppress the evidence regarding the payment of the rent by the defendant up to the date of the notice. It is submitted that the defendant had very cordial relations with the plaintiff and her husband and son who used to come to-his shop and collect the rent monthly without giving him any receipt. It is submitted that when the plaintiff asked the defendant to repair her T. V. set for which the defendant asked her to pay the fixed payment, she felt annoyed and filed the present suit. The reasonable requirement of the plaintiff was denied. It was submitted that the registered notice alleged to have been served upon the defendant was illegal and factually wrong.

(2.) On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues :

(3.) After appreciating the evidence led and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court returned its finding on issues I and 4 in favour of the plaintiff appellant and decreed the suit in her favour. A decree for the recovery of Rs.4,860.00 on account of rent and compensation for use and occupation of the suit house up to 7/08/1975 was also passed against the respondent defendant. In appeal the judgment and decree of the trial Court was set aside against which the present second appeal has been filed in this Court.