Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Janki Nath Wazir,S. Murtaza Fazl Ali, JJ.
L. Bhagwan Das Mengi - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India - Respondent
Second Appeal Nos. 30/1960, From Decision Of District Judge, Jammu, Dated-20-6-1960
Decided On : 12 December, 1960
LANDLORD AND TENANT - WRONGFUL USE AND OCCUPATION OF PREMISES - DAMAGES - NOTICE TO QUIT - HOUSES AND SHOPS RENT CONTROL ACT - APPLICABILITY - ARBITRATION CLAUSE - EFFECT - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, SEC. 111(A) - CONTRACT ACT, SEC. 28.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,000/- as damages for wrongful use and occupation of the suit premises with proportionate costs against the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that 10 years lease in favor of the defendants, of Bhagwan Niwas situate in Jammu expired on the 11th of January, 1959. The defendants were required to hand over vacant possession of the premises together with furniture and fittings on that date which the defendants failed to do.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the suit was maintainable, that the notice to quit was not necessary and the tenancy had expired by efflux of time and that the defendants were liable to pay damages for wrongful use and occupation of the premises but that the amount claimed by the plaintiff was excessive.
Issues: 1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the arbitration clause in the lease agreement and in view of Sec. 28 of the Contract Act, if so how? 2. Whether the provisions of Houses and Shops Rent Control Act apply in this case, if so what is its effect on the suit? 3. Whether the notice to quit was required to be given in the present case? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 500/-P. M. as damages for wrongful use and occupation of the suit premises by the defendants from 12-1-1959, if so how?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The dispute did not arise out of the tenancy and, therefore, clause 15 of lease agreement has no application to the present case. 2. Section l(3-a) of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act of 2009 specifically provides that the Act is not applicable to any house or premises belonging to or taken on lease or requisitioned by the Government. 3. The defendant did not reply to the notice and retained possession of the premises after the expiry of the lease and this caused a loss to the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 500/- P. M.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal of the plaintiff and decreed his claim in full. The defendants appeal under these circumstances is dismissed.
The plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,000/- as damages for wrongful use and occupation of the suit premises with proportionate costs against the defendants. The plaintiff alleged that 10 years lease in favour of the defendants, of Bhagwan Niwas situate in Jammu expired on the 11th of January, 1959. The defendants were required to hand over vacant possession of the premises together with furniture and fittings on that date which the defendants failed to do.
It was alleged that a notice under Sec. 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was delivered to them on 25th and 26th August 1958, informing the defendants that the plaintiff will charge Rs. 500/- P. M. as damages for wrongful use and occupation of the premises. The defendants failed to vacate the premises on the date mentioned in the notice and hence this suit for recovery of Rs. 1,000/- as damages for wrongful use and occupation of the premises at the rate of Rs. 500/- P. M. for a period of two months.
The defendants resisted the suit on the grounds, that the suit was not maintainable in view of arbitration clause in the lease agreement and in view of Sec. 28 of the Contract Act, that the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act of 2009 was applicable to the house in question and the plaintiff landlord was not entitled to demand or receive any enhanced rent for the same and Bhat no valid notice of ejectment was given to the defendants determining the lease.
It was further pleaded that the lease not having been terminated the plaintiff was not entitled to damages for wrongful use and occupation of the building. Lastly, it was averred that damages at the rate of Rs. 500/- P. M. were penal and excessive. Defendant No. 2 pleaded that he was improperly made a party to the suit and that his name was liable to be struck off. The trial Court raised various issues, the important ones among them are as follows:-
1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the arbitration clause in the lease agreement and in view of Sec. 28 of the Contract Act, if so how? O. P. D.
2. Whether the provisions of Houses and Shops Rent Control Act apply in this case, if so what is its effect on the suit? O. P. D.
3. Whether the notice to quit was required to be given in the present case? O. P. D. and
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 500/-P. M. as damages for wrongful use and occupation of the suit premises by the defendants from 12-1-1959, if so how? O. P. P. On examining the evidence adduced by the parties the trial Court found that the suit was maintainable, that the notice to quit was not necessary and the tenancy had expired by efflux of time and that the defendants were liable to pay damages for wrongful use and occupation of the premises but that the amount claimed by the plaintiff was excessive.
The plaintiffs claim was decreed to the extent of Rs. 400/- at the rate of Rs. 200/- P. M. On appeal the learned District Judge affirmed the findings of the trial Court but as regards damages the plaintiff was held to be entitled to claim damages at the rate of Rs. 384/- P. M. A decree for Rs. 768/- with proportionate costs was made in favour of the plaintiff against defendant No. 1 and the suit against defendant No. 2 was dismissed. Against this judgment and decree of the District Judge the plaintiff has come up in further appeal and the defendant No. 1 has also filed a cross-appeal. Both these appeals will be disposed of by this order.
(2) On behalf of the plaintiff appellant it is argued that the District Judge has erred in reducing the amount claimed by the plaintiff in his plaint. It has been pointed out that the District Judge has not given any good reason for reducing the amount of Rs. 500/- to Rs. 384/- P. M., especially when the plaintiff appellant had proved that he was offered Rs. 500/- P. M. for the house if the defendant had vacated it on the date mentioned in the notice.
The argument on behalf of the defendant appellant in his cross appeal is t
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
