The main legal point established in the judgment is that the income threshold for the applicability of the J&K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act was exceeded by the defendants, and the tenancy had terminated due to efflux of time.

1. This civil second appeal by the defendants is directed against judgment and decree dated 31.12.2012 of learned Additional District Judge, Udhampur passed in a Civil 1st Appeal. Learned Additional District Judge, while dismissing defendants' appeal, has upheld the judgment and decree passed by learned Sub Judge (C.J.M.) Udhampur in a suit for ejectment in favour of the plaintiffs (herein respondents) as against defendants (herein appellants and two others).

2. Heard. I have pursued the record.

3. Fact which are necessary for disposal of this appeal are these:

3.1. Plaintiffs' suit before the learned Sub Judge, Udhampur pertained to a piece of land (herein after to be referred as suit land) measuring 90 feet x 110 feet, underneath a cinema hall, namely, City Light and shops, situate at ward No. 3 (old), Udhampur. The suit land seems to have been taken on rent by predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, late Shri Sant Ram, in the year 2008 Bk, who constructed the cinema hall, and the shops to be used for running the cinema hall on the said land. After the death of late Shri Sant Ram, the original defendants, Shakti Parkash, Hirdhey Parkash and Santosh Rani executed a fresh lease deed (rent note) dated 15.07.1981 in respect of the suit land in favour of its owner, Shri Dina Nath, predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs. By virtue of the said lease deed, a fresh lease for a period of 15 years, commencing 1st August, 1981 and ending 31.07.1996, was thus created and the defendants inter alia agreed to vacate and deliver back the vacant possession of the suit land after removing the building structure and fixtures etc. from there after the end of the lease period.

3.2. As the defendants did not hand over the possession of the suit land to the plaintiffs after the end of the tenancy period at the mid night on 31.07.1996, Plaintiffs filed the suit for ejectment against them on 29.10.1996. They sought a decree for ejectment of the defendants from the suit land on the ground that the tenancy determined by efflux of time at the mid night on 31.07.1996 but the defendants did not hand over possession back to the plaintiffs and were continuing in possession as tenants at sufferance. They also alleged that defendants have violated the rent deed by renting out the shops existing on the suit land to M/S Kailoo Agency on monthly rental of 3,000/ rupees though the rent deed mandated use of the land and construction thereon only for the purpose of running the cinema hall. Plaintiffs also contended that suit land was reasonably and bona fide required by them as they wanted to construct shopping-cum-hotel complex in the said land and for that propose construction plan has been submitted by them to Town Area Committee, Udhampur. Plaintiffs also contended that the defendants were not entitled to protection under the J&K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act (for short, the Act) as their annual income was more than 60,000/ rupees and the tenancy was covered under Section 1(3)(iii) of the Act [Refer JK Laws 2nd Ed. 2013 Vol. 16 P-549]

3.3. Defendant Nos. 1 & 2, Shakti Parkash and Hirdhey Parkash, in their written statement before the trial Court pleaded that they ceased to be the partners in the City Light cinema due to dissolution of the partnership and therefore, had no right or interest in the tenancy.

3.4. Defendant No. 3, Santosh Rani, predecessor-in-interest of herein appellants, in her written statement, while admitting the tenancy and retirement of defendants 1 & 2 from cinema business, denied the violation of the lease deed as well as the personal necessity of the plaintiffs. She also pleaded that her net annual income was less than 60,000/ rupees and therefore, protection under the Act was applicable to the tenancy. While not denying the term of tenancy from 1.8.1981 to 31.7.1996, defendant No. 3 denied that she continues in possession of the suit land as tenant at sufferance and pleaded that she is in possession as tenant holing over. She, theref

Click Here to Read the rest of this document