- (1.)THIS is a tenantâ„¢s appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 14th January, 1986 passed by the learned District Judge, Jammu, whereby the appellant has been directed to be evicted from the suit property in execution of the aforesaid decree. Vide this judgment and decree dated 14th January, 1986, the judgment and decree dated 4 -6 -1983 passed by the learned Sub -Judge (C.J.M), Jammu has been set aside. The learned Sub -judge (Chief Judicial Magistrate), Jammu had dismissed the suit of the respondent -plaintiff seeking eviction of the appellant -defendant
(2.)THE facts leading to the filing of the appeal are indeed peculiar and slightly unusual. The appellant -Chander Raman was the tenant in respect of the property comprising of two rooms and a shop situated at Digiyana, Jammu of one Chaudhury Bashir Ahmad son of Qasim Din resident of Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. On 4 -10 -1976, however, the said Ch. Bashir Ahmad sold this property in favour of respondent -Om Parkash. Having thus become the owner of the property, the respondent, claiming to be the landlord of the appellant filed suit for ejectment of the appellant from the property in question in the trial Court. The main allegation on which the suit was founded was that the defendant had not paid arrears of rent to the plaintiff from October, 1976 uptill the date of the filling of the suit and that he had, therefore, committed more than three defaults of two months each in the past eighteen months, thus incurring the liability of eviction in terms of Section 11 (i) of the Jammu and Kashmir Houses and Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 (Act for short). It shall be advantageous to reproduce paras 4 and 5 of the plaint, which read thus: 4. That the defendant has not paid the arrears of rent to the plaintiff from October 1976 uptill now. Despite the repeated requests and demands of the plaintiff and ultimately the plaintiff served a notice dated 10th of January 1979 on the defendant thereby requesting him to pay the arrears of rent amounting to Rs 5400/ - which became due upto ending of December 1978. The defendant received the said notice on 13th of January 1979 but despite the receipt of this notice, the defendant has not paid the arrears of rent to the plaintiff within the period mentioned in the notice. 5. That the defendant has committed more than three defaults of two months each in the payment of rent within a period of 18 months as such has incurred a liability for ejectment under section 11 (i) of the J&K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act.
(3.)SECTION 11 of the Act in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of present case is reproduced as under: - 11. Protection of a tenant against eviction. - (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in any other Act or law, no order or decree for the recovery of possession of any house or shop shall be made by any Court in favour of the landlord against a tenant, including a tenant whose lease has expired: Provided that nothing in this sub -section shall apply to any suit for decree for such recovery of possession - (i) Subject to the provisions of section 12, where the amount of two months rent legally payable by the tenant and due from him is in arrears but not having been paid within the time fixed by contract, or in the absence of such contract by the fifteenth day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable or by not having been validly deposited in accordance with section 14: Provided that no such amount shall be deemed to be in arrears unless the landlord on the rent becoming due serves a notice in writing through post office under a registered cover on the tenant to pay or deposit the arrears within a period of fifteen days from the date of the receipt of such notice and the tenant fails to pay or deposit the said arrears within the specified period. 
In the written statement filed by the defendant in answer to the plaint, the receipt of the notice of demand, a mention whereof was made by the plaintiff in para No.4 of the plaint has not been denied. In so far as the rate of rent is concerned, the defendant denied that the rent was @ Rs 200/ - PM & set up a case of the rent being at the rate of Rs. 75/ - per month and that the arrears of rent had been offered to the landlord, but because these were not accepted, he had to deposit the amount before the Rent Controller under section 14 of the Act.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.