(1) This case involves the determination of the scope of the proviso to the explanation to sub-Section (h) of Section 11 (1) of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act. 1966 (shortly the Act). The events leading up to this point may be shortly stated: The appellant brought a suit for the eviction of the respondent from a shop situated in Srinagar city. Her contention was that she wanted to convert the shop into a room in order to supplement her residential accommodation which was inadequate. The trial court found that the requirement pressed by the appellant was not reasonable. The first appellate court affirmed the finding. The matter came up in second appeal to this court. One of the contentions raised before the learned Single Judge hearing the second appeal was that the proviso to Explanation to Section 11 (1) (h) of the Act made it obligatory on the court to consider whether partial eviction of the tenant could satisfy the requirement of the landlord and since this was not done, the finding of the courts below, although it was concurrent, was vitiated. The argument was sought to be supported by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rehman Joo Wangoo Versus Ram Chand a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document