1. This Civil Second Appeal arises out of a suit for ejectment which has been decreed by the two courts below against the defendant-appellants and pertains to a house owned by the plaintiffs-respondents. The suit was brought on the ground of personal requirement of the respondents. A number of pleas was raised by the appellants in defence to the suit. One of the controversies was as to whether or not the suit was governed by the Jammu & Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966. Even though no issue on this ground was formally raised, nevertheless the learned counsel for the parties addressed arguments on this legal aspect and the trial court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties came to the conclusion that the J & K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act was not applicable to a suit where the defendants to be ejected was Government. The appellants challenged this order of the trial court before the High Court but with no success. Thereafter, it appears that the parties did not chose to invite findings of the court on all the points in dispute and limited the trial of the suit to the following issues alone :

1. Whether the suit was bad for misjoinder of the parties? O. P. D.

2. Whether the notice is not valid which was served on the defendant? O. P. D.

3. Relief.

2. The appellants examined only one witness whereas the respondents did not examine any witness. The trial court held on all the issues against the appellants and decreed the respondents suit. The appellants want in appeal before the District Judge, but the appeal also failed. This is how this second appeal.

3. Mr. Gupta, the learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the judgments of the two courts below on the following grounds: -

(i) that there was neither any issue nor any finding of the courts below as to whether the composite notice u/s 80 of the Civil Procedure Code and u/s A 106 of the Transfer of Property Act was at all served npon the appellant ;

(ii) that the alleged notice could not have the effect of determining the tenancy of the appellant ;

(iii) that the alleged composite notice could not be considered to be a valid notice u/s 80 of the Civil Procedure Code ; and

(iv) that the courts below have decreed the suit without giving any finding as to whether the composite notice was a valid notice in the eye of law.

4. Issues arise when an allegation of fact or law is averred by one party and denied by the other. An allegation of fact in the plaint if not denied specifically or by necessary implication or stated not to be admitted in the written statement, shall be ordinarily taken to be admitted. Again it is not enough for the defendant to merely say that he does not admit the correctness of averments made in the plaint, he must further state in what respect he disputes it. The allegation about the service of notice is contained in Para 7 of the plaint which reads as under: -

"That the defendants inspite of a valid notice to quit, served upon the defendants, did not vacate the premises."

5. A plain reading of this para would reveal that the allegation made in this para is two fold: (1) that the notice to quite was served upon the defendants, and (2) that the notice was a valid one. This allegation in Para 7 of the plaint has been denied in the corresponding para of the written statement in the following words:

"That the contents of para 7 of the plaint are incorrect and are therefore denied. No valid notice was served on the defendants and as such the question of the vacation of the house does not arise."

6. A perusal of this para of the written statement would show that the defendants have not admitted the correctness of the averments made in para 7 of the plaint, and why the defendants have not admitted the same has been explained by them in the very next sentence by stating that it was not valid notice. Receipt of notice and its validity were clearly two distinct allegations, the former being an allegation of fact, and the later being an allegati

Click Here to Read the rest of this document