Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
ALI MOHAMMAD MAGREY, J.
Mst Jameela Bano and others – Appellant
Versus
Qazi Abdul Rashid – Respondent
RSA no. 11 of 2019 CM no. 5316 of 2019
Decided on : 01-11-2021
Eviction - Suit for Ejectment and arrears of rent – Bonafide requirement of landlord – Jurisdiction of Court- Prior notice been issued to the defendant and it qualifies a suit to be decreed against the defendant/appellants herein for eviction.
Finding of the Court:
Respondent has not proved that he actually needs the suit property for his personal use as he has other means of living and is not dependent on such property; the default in payment of rent has not been proved; although the notices are stated to have been issued to the appellants but its contents were not proved; the amount of rent was being adjusted at the end of month against the amount of goods taken on credit by the respondent therefore there was no question of default; the evidence has not been properly marshaled by the trial court or the appellate court - since the appellants are in use and occupation of the suit property for almost half a century, therefore, they do not deserve any further premium in vacating the suit property.
JUDGMENT :
1. By the instant Civil Second Appeal, the appellants are seeking setting aside of the judgments and decrees dated 28.07.2014 and 08.06.2019, for short impugned judgments and decrees, passed by the courts of Sub Judge, (Judge Small Causes) Srinagar, for short trial court and the Additional District Judge, Srinagar, for short Appellate Court, respectively, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal.
BRIEF FACTS
2. Briefly put the controversy as it is delineated before the trail court and appellate court is that two tin roofed shops situated at Jawahar Nagar, Srinagar, hereinafter for short as suit property, are owned by the respondent who rented out the same to the husband of the appellant no. 1 and father of appellants 2 to 6, herein at a monthly rent of Rs. 210/- for a period of one year in terms of lease deed dated 20th March, 1981, effective from 1st March, 1981. The respondent issued a notice to the appellants for evicting the suit property after the lease expired through his advocate firstly on 26th February, 1982, thereafter, through registered AD notice dated 23rd December, 1982 projecting his personal requirement for the suit property and seeking payment of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 4515/-. Since the possession was not delivered to the respondent, therefore, he filed a Suit for Ejectment before the trial court on 16th November, 1983, projecting inter alia that he requires the suit property for his personal requirement and that the defendants/ appellants have committed more than three defaults within 18 months in the payment of rent, therefore, are liable to be ejected. The following prayer was made in the suit by the respondent/ plaintiff:
b) A decree for the recovery of Rs. 4515/- as arrears of rent be also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, with costs of the suit.”
3. The other side appeared and filed its written statement projecting a different story by stating inter alia that defendant and his brothers are in occupation of the suit property since the year 1969 at an annual rent of Rs. 2000/- which was enhanced to Rs. 2520/- from March 1981 i.e. Rs. 210/- monthly. It was averred that unfair means were adopted by the respondent/ plaintiff in seeking eviction of the appellants as the notice dated 26th February, 1982 sent through Advocate P. N. Goja by the respondent did not mention about any arrears of rent as no the defendant had paid the advance rent, therefore, there was no question of being anything outstanding. It is further stated that the respondent attempted a forcible dispossession of the defendant by demolishing the walls of the suit property to which effect is a report filed by the defendant before the police concerned. The personal requirement of the respondent as also the three defaults attributed to the defendants had also been refuted.
4. The trial court, in order to appreciate the merit of the case, framed the following issues for determination:
2. Whether the defendant has committed three legal defaults within a time of 18 months as envisaged under law? OPP
3. In case issue no. 1 is proved, what are the comparative advantages and dis-advantages of the parties? OPP
4. Whether partial Eviction will suffice the needs of the parties OPPs (Parties).
5. Whether the valuation for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction has not been fixed properly, if so, what is the proper valuation? OPD
6. Whether the suit is not maintainable? If so, why?
7. Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of necessary parties? OPD.
8. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the suit?
9. Whether amount of Rs. 4515/- as arrears of rent upto 15.12.1982 has been paid by the defendant? OPD.
10. In case issue no. 9 is not proved, what is the amoun
Eviction of tenant – Bonafide requirement of landlord proved beyond doubt.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of detailed evidence and measurement to support claims of personal necessity under the Bihar Building (Lease, Rent and Eviction) Control Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an appeal under Section 100 of the CPC must involve substantial questions of law, and the court will not interfere with concurrent findings of....
The landlord's personal necessity for the tenanted premises is paramount, and tenant's claims of alternative premises do not negate this requirement.
The subsequent event of the son joining a job did not extinguish the landlord's necessity for the rented shop, and the court restored the decree for eviction passed by the trial court based on this p....
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....
The landlord's genuine requirement for additional accommodation for personal use entitles the landlord to use it as best suits the requirement, and subsequent events may be considered to have oversha....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
