Per : Tejinder Singh Doabia, J.

1. The present appellant figured as a plaintiff in a suit for ejectment. This was filed under Section 11(1)(h) of the Jammu & Kashmir Houses-and Shops Rent control Act. This was with regard to a shop situated in main Bazar Udhampur.

The respondent is a tenant.

2. In para 3" of the plaint, it was pleaded that earlier also a suit for ejectment was filed in the Court of Sub-Judge Udhampur, this was dismissed vide judgment dated 10.05.1963. It is not necessary to advert to further facts in this regard. Suffice it to say, that the present suit was filed after 20 years on 10.08.1983. In this suit it was pleaded that earlier the plaintiff was in occupation of a shop which was owned by his father-in-law. It was stated that a very small, portion thereof was owned by the plaintiff. This was to the extent or area having a width of 3. The rest of the shop as noticed above was owned by the father-in-law. It was further stated that the father-in-law of the plaintiff executed a gift on 22.8.1981. On account of this gift the shop where the plaintiff was permitted to carry on the business, came under the ownership of one Rajinder Kumar. As the main premises stood transferred to Rajinder Kumar son of the plaintiff, the plaintiff thought it apt to relinquish his rights in the 3, wide shop also. Accordingly a deed of relinquishment was executed on 14.2.1983. It was further pleaded that Rajinder Kumar is staying separately. After mentioning of these facts, in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint, it was pleaded that the plaintiff-appellant required the premises under the possession of the respondent for his own use and also for the need of his son. It was pleaded that his son is un-employed. In addition, to this, the plea taken was that the defendant-respondent is also the owner of five shops in Udhampur Town and has got vacant possession of one shop from one Faquir Chand. Taking shelter behind these pleadings it was projected that the premises are required by the plaintiff for himself and also for the use and occupation of his son.

3. The defendants filed the written statement. The plea taken was that the plaintiff is already carrying on business as a chemist alongwith his minor son in another premises. It was thus pleaded that the shop/premises are not required by him. The fact that the plaintiff was living jointly with his son in the same residential accommodation, was projected in paragraph 5" of the written statement. It was admitted that the premises from where the plaintiff was carrying on business were owned by father-in-law of the plaintiff. Thus, the sum and substance of the pleadings on the part of the plaintiff was that the premises which were in his occupation, were owned by plaintiffs father-in-law. He had executed a gift. His father-in-law has since died and the property which stood gifted in favour of Rajinder Kumar has come under his i.e. ownership of Rajinder Kumar. A small portion of the shop which was owned by him. i.e. an area of the width of 3 has also come to vest in Rajinder Kumar. This was in pursuance of a deed or relinquishment executed by the plaintiff. He stated that he wants to carry on business in the premises, which has been let out to the defendant. This defendant admitted that the premises from which the plaintiff was carrying on business were owned by the father-in-law of the plaintiff. He, however, denied that the premises are required by the plaintiff. The fact that plaintiff was living jointly with his son, was projected.

4. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The first appeal preferred also stands dismissed. Now, a second appeal has been preferred. A perusal of the file of this appeal indicates that as a question of law was framed on 8.11.1999. This is to the following effect:

(i) Whether the findings recorded on the question of personal requirement by the learned trial court are sustainable in the face of evidence led by the parties?

5. Before proceeding further it would be apt to notic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document