Point of Law: Tenancy and Land Lord - Bona fide & ‘need’ - If a landlord is in genuine and bona fide need of a tenanted portion, tenant cannot legally raise the issue that space available with landlord is adequate. It is settled law that a person cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate. No party can take stand as per convenience and a party cannot be allowed to withdraw from admissions made by it in pleadings in respect of same subject matter.

JUDGMENT :

1. Judgment and decree dated 28th December 2012, passed by the Additional District Judge, Srinagar (for brevity “Trial Court”) in a Suit for ejectment and recovery of arrears of rent is under challenge in this Appeal on the grounds tailored therein.

2. As is discernible from pleadings of parties as also evident from the record, Ghulam Mohammad Langoo (respondent herein), filed a Suit for ejectment and arrears of rent against appellant-defendant in respect of a shop and room (for short “suit premises”) under the tenancy of defendant on the grounds that defendant defaulted in payment of rent and suit premises is required by him for his own use and occupation in order to enable his son, Mohammad Amin Langoo, to run business of his own, who is running business in partnership with his brother but have separated now. He has thus dire need to occupy the suit premises to carry on his own business.

3. The suit-premises was taken on rent by defendant-tenant from plaintiff on monthly rent of Rs.350/- for a period of eleven months. In this regard a rent deed was executed on 7th July 1997. The rent was agreed to be paid on 10th of every month. The case of the plaintiff is that defendant from the very beginning defaulted in making payment of rent. After expiry of initial period of eleven months, defendant did not seek its extension, nor he vacated suit premises and continued to remain in possession. Defendant is alleged to have not paid rent from 1st July 1997 nor did he vacate suit premises. Plaintiff demanded rent and also asked defendant to vacate premises but he refused. Notice was served upon defendant asking him handover possession of suit premises and pay arrears of rent as well as damages. In the notice, plaintiff claimed that suit premises was required by him for occupation of his son, Mohammad Amin Langoo, to enable him to run his business in the suit premises. Plaintiff, thus, sought eviction of defendant-tenant on the grounds of default and reasonable requirement to occupy for his son.

4. Defendant/tenant admitted that he executed rent deed in respect of suit premises in favour of plaintiff on 7th July 1997, though he was holding possession as tenant since 1976. The suit premises was originally owned by Nizam-ud-din Qazi, from whom he obtained suit premises on rent. The suit premises was purchased by plaintiff in the year 1987 from his previous landlord. Defendant admitted that he continued to be tenant of suit premises after it was purchased by plaintiff and he even executed Rent Deed in his favour. He denied having committed any default in payment of rent. He pleads that suit premises is the only source of his livelihood on the earnings of which he has to maintain his family. He had been paying rent to plaintiff and his legal heirs. It is stated that intention of plaintiff from the very beginning was not good as he wanted to evict him. He paid cheque in the month of January, 2020 for an amount of Rs.3000/- to the son-in-law of plaintiff who accepted the same but later on returned it on 15th April 2000 on the pretext that relation between landlord and tenant had gone sour.

5. What emerges from written statement is that relationship of landlord and tenant is admitted. Requirement of landlord to occupy the shop for his son has been denied. The default in payment of rent has also been also denied. Defendant claims that suit premises is his only source of livelihood. The sons of plaintiff are doing their business. Two sons are conducting business in the shop adjacent to the shop under his tenancy and he has also purchased commercial building in Qamarwari, Srinagar, where he adjusted his two other sons and other shops have been given on rent. Plaintiff had also purchased land.

6. The Trial Court, in view of pleadings of parties, framed following Issues on 17th October 2000:

1. Whether the suit is not maintainable under law? OPD

2. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against the defendant for filing the suit? OPD

3. Whethe