Judgment

FAZAL ALI, J.:- This is a plaintiffs appeal by special leave against a judgment dated 10th October, 1966 of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissing the plaintiffs suit.

2. The facts of the case lie within a very narrow compass and after hearing counsel for the parties we propose to decide only one point, viz., the question as to whether or not the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree of ejectment against the defendants in respect of the house in question on the ground of personal necessity, and, therefore, we shall narrate only those facts which are germane for this purpose.

3. The property in suit was four storeyed building situated at Maisuma Lal Chowk, Srinagar and belonged to one Peer Ali Mohammad, the ancestor of the plaintiffs. This building was leased out to the defendants by a registered lease deed dated 1st December, 1947 for a period of 10 years. Under the lease the lessor had provided some furniture and crockery to the lessees. Furthermore, it was clearly stipulated that the building was leased out for the purpose of running a hotel by the lessees, and for this purpose the lessees were given the right to make suitable alterations in the same, but were prohibited from making any alteration which may effect the durability or damage the building. On the expiry of the period of the lease, the appellants demanded possession of the building from the respondents and despite certain notices given by the appellants the respondents failed to give possession of the building. Hence the plaintiffs suit.

4. The plaintiffs had taken three main grounds in support of their contention for ejectment of the defendants from the suit premises. In the first place, the appellants alleged that they required the building in order to extend their business by running a hotel there themselves; secondly, as the lease had expired by efflux of time, the respondents were legally bound to surrender possession. Thirdly, it was averred by the plaintiffs that the Jammu & Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was wholly inapplicable to the premises in dispute, because the yearly income of the defendants far exceeded Rs. 20,000 and that running a hotel did not fall within the purview of Section 2 (3) of the Act. The suit was resisted by the respondents who took, inter alia, a number of objections to the grant of the relief to the appellants. In the first place, it was pleaded that the income of the respondents being less than Rs. 20,000 per year the suit was clearly covered by the Act. Secondly, it was averred that the definition of the word house in Section 2 (3) of the Act was wide enough to include a hotel. It was next averred that the plaintiffs had no personal necessity and had filed the suit merely for the purpose of getting a higher rent. Lastly, it was contended that as the plaintiffs required the house for running a hotel, such a purpose did not fall within the ambit of Sec. 11 (1) (h) of the Act which applied only to such a case where the landlord required the house for his occupation and, at any rate, having regard to the comparative advantages or disadvantages of the landlord and the tenant, there was no equity on the side of the plaintiffs.

5. The case was tried by the City Judge, Srinagar who accepted the case of the defendants (respondents) and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiffs thereupon filed an appeal before the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir which held that the plaintiffs had not proved their personal necessity, and, therefore, the appeal was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiffs filed an application for leave to appeal to this Court and the same having been refused, they obtained special leave of this Court and hence the appeal before us.

6. In support of the appeal Mr. Lal Narayan Sinha, counsel for the appellants submitted three points. In the first place, he contended that there was sufficient evidence to indicate that the income of the defendants-respondents was more