A tenant cannot dictate a landlord's needs; once a tenancy is terminated by notice, the tenant's status may shift to tenant at sufferance, allowing for eviction.

JUDGMENT ;

1. This appeal calls in question judgement and decree dated 20th June 2024 of the court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar (for the sake of brevity hereinafter is called as “Trial Court”) that has decreed a civil suit titled as Fatima Ajaz v. Mohammad Alam Hakak and another, instituted by respondent herein (who shall, nevertheless, be hereinafter referred to as “plaintiff” as she originally had been named so before the Trial Court) against appellants herein (who shall be hereinafter referred to as “defendants” as had been originally called before the Trial Court) and exhorts setting-aside thereof.

2. I have heard learned counsel for parties. I have gone through the record and considered the matter.

Case of Plaintiff:

3. Plaintiff, Fatima Ajaz, thought it appropriate for redressal of her grievances to get her property back to file a civil suit. Her submission in the suit is that she is owner in possession of a residential house with land underneath and appurtenant thereto falling under Khasra no.3062, bearing Khewat no.563, Khata no.1385, situate at Mouza Zoonimar, Ali Pora Bagh, Ali Mardan Khan Industrial Area, Nowshera Tehsil Srinagar; front portion thereof comprises of single storeyed commercial building on the land measuring 2300 square feet. She had rented out the said complex to defendants, Mohammad Alam Hakak and Mohammad Mustatassan Hakak. A rent deed, she had executed for a period of three years. Sub Registrar, Srinagar, on 23rd July 2011 registered the rent deed. Monthly rent was fixed as Rs.18200/- commencing from July 2011. Rent was subject to increase of Rs.730/- per month after every three years if tenant continues to remain in tenancy after expiry of three years. Defendants paid rent up to January 2021; thereafter they failed. She maintains that period of tenancy has expired. She does not want to extend the period of tenancy. Defendants are in illegal and wrongful occupation of the premises. Her husband is ailing from chronic disease of throat cancer with removal of voice box, which needs regular checkups and follow-ups. Plaintiff issued legal notice upon defendants on 9th February 2021 determining the tenancy and to quit and vacate the premises, which was sent to them through speed post on 11th February 2021. Defendant no.1 has opened new shops at Alamgari Bazar, Hawal, Khanyar and other places. Defendant no.2 has abandoned his business in the vicinity of suit property and defendant no.1 has illegally occupied the remaining portion of the suit property. Defendant tno.2 has opened his shop separately at City Mall, Srinagar.

Stand of Defendants:

4. Defendants in their written statement have stated that the suit is not maintainable. Plaintiff has no cause of action against defendants. Clause 2 of rent deed deals with extension of tenancy and covenants that in the event of tenants/defendants continuing with tenancy on expiry of three years, there shall be an increase of rent by Rs.730/- per month on expiry of every three years. Defendants have been given unilateral power to extend tenancy subject to increase in rent, so it is brazen lie that rent deed was not extended after three years.

Issues framed by Trial Court:

5. The Trial Court in terms of Order dated 17th April 2023, framed following issues: -

(i) Whether defendants paid monthly rent to the plaintiff (Landlady) of the rented premises till January 2021 and thereafter failed to make the payment of rent, as such, are in illegal and wrongful occupation of the premises as trespassers and are liable to be evicted from the rented premises (OPP)

(ii) Whether defendants always violated the terms and conditions of the rent deed and have made structural changes in the rented premises without consent of the plaintiff and have proved to be bad tenants as such liable to be evicted from the premises? (OPP)

(iii) Whether plaintiff needs the suit premises for her personal use? (OPP)

(iv) Whether defendant no.1 has wholesale chain of FMCG products across the Kashmir