In the case of statutory tenants, a notice under Section 106/116 of the Transfer of Property Act is not required for determining the tenancy. However, a valid notice is necessary to terminate the tenancy before seeking recovery of possession.

1. These are the four civil second appeals against the common judgment and decree of the District Judge, Jammu dated 25th of August, 1976 affirming the judgment and decree for ejectment of the trial court of Sub Judge, Jammu dated 15-4-1974 in respect of a house situate in Jammu in occupation of the appellants as tenants.

2. Speaking in brief the facts of the case are that the appellants were the tenants of one Sardar Randhir Singh and they occupied different sets of rooms in the same building on payment of monthly rent. The house was purchased by Shri Parshotam Dass the plaintiff respondent from S. Randhir Singh. Afterwards the plaintiff respondent filed four separate suits for ejectment against the four set of defendants tenants. The plaintiff sought eviction of the defendants appellants on two fold grounds: (1) that the plaintiff respondent required the demised premises for his own use and occupation; and (2) that the demised premises were required by him for the purpose of rebuilding. The plaintiff respondent further averred that he served notices on the defendants for vacating the premises and determining the tenancy but the defendants failed to comply with these notices. The defendants, however, denied the allegations of the plaintiff. They resisted the suit on all the grounds and controverted the allegations made by the plaintiff.

The following issues were raised in the case:-

1. Whether the suit house has been purchased by the plaintiff from S. Randhir Singh and he is its owner ever since? O.P.P.

2. Whether the suit house is reasonably required by the plaintiff for his personal use and his necessity is comparatively more than that of the defendant ? O.P.P.

3. Whether the plaintiff needs the suit house for the purposes of rebuilding, if so, whether the rebuilding is for the benefit of the public? O.P.P.

4. Whether the plaintiff has served a valid notice to quit on the defendant if so what is its effect on the suit ? O.P.P.

5. How has the tenancy started in the matter and what is its effect on the suit ? O.P.P.

6. Whether the defendant has committed any defaults in payment of rent and what is its effect on the suit ? O.P.P.

7. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable, if so, why and how ? O.P.D.

8. Whether the present suit is not triable by this Court ? O.P.D.

9. Relief? O.P.P.

3. Both the courts below have held that the plaintiff is the owner of the building and the appellants are his tenants; that the plaintiff respondent reasonably requires the demised premises for his own use and occupation and also that the demised premises are required by him for the purpose of rebuilding. They have also held that valid notices terminating the tenancy were issued to the defendants. The defendants, however, refused to acknowledge the notices and failed to comply with the same. On these findings the trial court decreed the plaintiffs suit which decree was affirmed in the first appeal by the District Judge. Aggrieved by the judgments and decrees of the courts below the appellants have come up in further appeal to this court.

4. I have heard the elaborate arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Appearing for the appellants Mr. Sethi has argued that it has not been established that the plaintiff is the owner of the demised premises because he has not produced the original sale deed evidencing the sale transaction in his favour. Only copies of the sale deed have been produced which do not constitute PRIMARY evidence in the case. The plaintiff has clubbed two inconsistent grounds in the plaint and seeks eviction of the defendants from the suit premises on three grounds. If the suit property is required by the plaintiff for his personal use and occupation he could not in the same breath claim its recovery on the grounds of building and rebuilding. Mr. Sethi has also contended that as the original landlord S. Randhir Singh could not claim and in fact he never claimed recovery of possession on the ground of his personal r

Click Here to Read the rest of this document