Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
Janki Nath Bhat, J.
Punnu Mal - Appellant
Versus
Durga Singh - Respondent
CSA No. 21/1966
Decided On : 28 December, 1966
HOUSES & SHOPS RENT CONTROL ACT - S. 11 (1) (H) - REASONABLE REQUIREMENT - COMPARATIVE ADVANTAGE AND DISADVANTAGE - INTERPRETATION - NOTICE - SERVICE - TENDER OR DELIVERY - AFFIXATION ON CONSPICUOUS PART OF PROPERTY - PRESUMPTION OF SERVICE - S. 27, GENERAL CLAUSES ACT - S. 114, EVIDENCE ACT.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff, a refugee from Pakistan, purchased a house for his residential purposes. He served a notice on the defendant, a tenant in the house, to vacate the premises. The defendant resisted the eviction, claiming that he had been living in the house for a long time and that his eviction would cause him great hardship. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit for ejectment, holding that the plaintiff did not reasonably require the house and that the notice was not properly served. The lower appellate court set aside the trial court's finding on the first issue, holding that the plaintiff did require the house reasonably, but affirmed the finding on the second issue.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the plaintiff had a genuine and reasonable requirement for the house, considering his status as a refugee, his investment in the property, and the fact that he was paying a higher rent for the house he was currently occupying. The court also held that the notice was properly served on the defendant, as the postman had made several attempts to deliver the notice personally to the defendant, who had evaded service, and had finally affixed a copy of the notice on the outer door of the defendant's residence.
Issues: 1. Whether the plaintiff reasonably requires the house for his personal necessity, keeping into consideration the comparative advantage and disadvantage of the parties? 2. Has the plaintiff served any valid notice on the defendant and so he is entitled to a decree for ejectment?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The expression "comparative advantage and disadvantage" in S. 11 (1) (h) of the Houses & Shops Rent Control Act must be interpreted in a rational and reasonable manner. Reasonable requirement does not mean that there must be a dire necessity of a landlord or that the plaintiff should be on the roadside or absolutely shelterless before he can be given possession of his own property from a tenant. 2. The requirement of reasonable personal necessity does not merely mean a mere wish on the part of the landlord to go into occupation of his own property wherever it suits his sweet will or pleasure to do so, it also does not mean that the plaintiff must establish absolute or dire necessity for the occupation of the property in dispute for his or his family purposes. 3. Service of a notice under S. 106 of the Transfer of Property Act is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and unless the contrary is proved to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. 4. The presumption of service of the notice on the defendant is further strengthened by the fact that the defendant admittedly lives in the house where the notice was addressed, carries on business in the city of Jammu, and was not out of Jammu on the relevant dates when the notices were sought to be served upon him.
Final Decision: The High Court set aside the decrees of both the courts below and passed a decree for ejectment of the defendant respondent from the suit premises in favor of the plaintiff appellant.
(2) The facts giving rise to this suit are that the plaintiff brought the suit against the defendant with . the allegation that the defendant took on rent the suit house at Rs. 12 a month from 1st Baisakh 1997 by means of a rent deed with its previous owner S. D Chopra. Later on the rent was increased to Rs 17 a month. The plaintiff who comes from Maluchak on the border was uprooted from that place in the year 1947 and started a small shop in the city of Jammu. He has since the partition of India been living in Jammu in a rented house. The landlord of that house had served a notice of ejectment upon him. On 12th March 63 the plaintiff purchased the house for Rs. 13000. He does not own any other house. He sent a number of notices to the defendant The notices were not served upon him as he evaded service. Then another notice was got affixed on the outer door of his residence. Hence the suit for ejectment.
(3) The suit was contested by the defendant on a number of grounds. His plea was that he had been living in the house since 1997 (Bikrami). The plaintiff did not require the house for his occupation ; at any rate the comparative disadvantage to the defendant would be much more than the advantage to the plaintiff. He could not be ejected from this house. His brother Hoshnak Singh with his family also lived in this very house and very great hardship would be caused to the defendant if he were turned out of his house. He had not received any notice of ejectment as contemplated by law. The suit should be thrown out.
(4) The trial court framed four issues in the case which were as under :-
1. Whether the plaintiff reasonably requires this house for his personal necessity keeping into consideration the comparative advantage and disadvantage of the parties ? OPP
2. Has the plaintiff served any valid notice on the defendant and so he is entitled to a decree for ejectment ? OPP
3. Is the present suit against the defendant alone not competent when the rent deed is admittedly executed by him alone ; if so, on which ground ? OPP
4. Relief ?
(5) The first two issues were only the subject matter of argument. The trial court decided issue 1 against the plaintiff and held that it will not be proper to eject the defendant from the house because the comparative disadvantage to him would be much more than to the plaintiff if the relief of ejectment were refused to him. On the second issue the trial court held that the notice was not proper and hot properly observed. On this issue the lower appellate court affirmed the of the trial court, whereas it set asitds us finding on the first issue, holding that the plaintiff did require the house reasonably for his own requirement. The result was that as the issue, of notice was decided by both the courts against the plaintiff, his is suit for ejectment was thrown out.
(6) I have heard the learned parties. The case of the plaintiff is that he was a refugee from Mulachak Tehsil R. S. Pura. which is on the Pakistan border. He had been carrying on business for the last 16 years and was residing in the city of Jammu. He had no other accommodation of his own and after spending a huge sum of Rs. 13000 he purchased this house for his residential purposes. He has a family of ten members. The landlord in whose house he puts up at the present moment had served a notice of ejectment on 24-4-63 on him. He has to pay a rent of Rs. 30 for the house where he lives at the present moment. The defendant who is a tenant of the house in dispute pays Rs. 17 a month. The plaintiff reasonably requires the house for his personal use. He should be granted a decree.
(7) On the other hand the case of the defendant is that he is a tenant of the house for the last 25 y
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
