BHAT, J.: - This is a civil first appeal preferred by the plaintiff-landlords against the defendant-tenants challenging the decree of the City Judge, Srinagar, dated 30-3-1966 whereby he dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs for ejectment. The plaintiffs case is that the predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs, Peer Ali Mohammad. Let out to the defendants a three storeyed building with a tin roofed kitchen and land underneath and appurtenant thereto situated near the Palladium Talkies, Srinagar, by a registered lease deed dated 4th Poh 2004 corresponding to 17th December 1947 for a period of ten years beginning from 1st December 1947 on an annual rental of Rs.5,000/-.

(2) Peer Ali Mohammad died in the year 1953 and defendant No. 10, the widow of Peer Ali Mohammad, transferred her share in the property in favour of plaintiff No. 4. Hanifa Begum, daughter of Peer Ali Mohammad. The lease expired on 1st December 1957and even thereafter the defendants had badly damaged the property. The earnings of the defendants from this property were more than Rs. 2,000 P.M. The plaintiffs bana fide required the property for their own business purposes. The Rent Control Act, it was contended, was not applicable to the case. Notices on 1st November 1957 and 13th November, 1957 were issued to the defendants calling upon them to return possession of the property but these had no effect. Hence the suit for ejectment which was instituted on 30th December, 1958.

(3) The defence of the defendant-tenants was the defendants were not tenants at sufferance. That defendant No. 10 Sara Begum, had not transferred her share to plaintiff No. 4. There was, no complete description of the property in the plaint. The plaintiffs did not require the building for their own use. The suit was not maintainable under the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act. No proper notice was given to the defendants and as such also the suit was not maintainable. The lease deed and the terms of the lease deed were however admitted by the defendants in their written statement. The property it was admitted was taken on lease for running a hotel and bakery and the defendants alleged that they had invested a premises. There was further contract between Peer Ali Mohammad and the defendants that the defendants could continue in possession of the leased property after the expiry of the term of the lease.

(4) The defendants had been depositing the rent in the District Judge™s Court where on an application of some of the plaintiffs, defendant No. 10 was appointed as the guardian of the minor plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs had been recovering the rent after 1st December 1957 from the defendants. The defendants pleaded that they had in no way damaged the property. The plaintiffs did not require the premises which under the law they could not do. The plaintiffs had other property which they had let out and from which they were getting enough of income while the defendants depended for their maintenance on the earnings from this hotel. They had no other income excepting the income from this hotel which was not Rupees 2,000/- per month as alleged by the plaintiffs. The defendants had invested large sums of money in starting this hotel and if they were ejected, they would suffer irreparable loss. The other objections raised in the written statement by the defendants are not material for the disposal of this appeal and hence we do not notice them here.

(5) The trial court framed the following issues in the case:

1. Whether the plaintiffs want the suit property for their personal use in view of section 11 clause (h) of the House and Shop Rent Control Act, and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree ejectement against the defendants? O.P.P.

2. Whether the defendants have damaged the suit property and are doing so now; and if the plaintiff are entitled to a decree of ejectment on this ground? O.P.P.

3. Whether the annual income of the defendant exceeds Rs. 20,000/- and as such the provisions of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document