UNION OF INDIA Vs. BANSI LAL CHERWOO
LAWS(J&K)-1986-8-14
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR
Decided on August 28,1986

UNION OF INDIA Appellant
VERSUS
Bansi Lal Cherwoo Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THIS Civil 1st. Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Sub Judge (CJM), Srinagar, dated 30 -6 -1982 decreeing the suit of the plaintiff respondent. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal may first be noticed:
(2.) THE plaintiff respondent is the owner of a building known as "Cheroo Building" situate at Karan Nagar, Srinagar. The building was leased out to the Union of India, defendant No. l through the Director, Small Industries, Services, defendant No. 2. Lease deed dated i5 -7 -19 -4 was executed and subsequently renewed on i5 -7 -1965. The monthly rental fixed was Rs. 330/ -. The plaintiff later on invoked the arbitration clause in the lease deed for seeking enhancement of rent and sought the appointment of an arbitrator through an arbitration application filed in the High Court. An Arbitrator was accordingly appointed who gave his Award in favour of the landlord and enhanced the rent to Rs. 800/ - per month. The award was remitted to the High court for being made a rule of the court, where it was resisted by the defendants on various grounds including the one that there was no legal and valid agreement in existence between the parties on the plea that the agreement had not been executed in the manner prescribed by Article 2;9 of the Constitution of India. The contention of the defendants was upheld by the High Court and the award was rejected by learned Single Judge on 26 -7 -3977. An appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge was also dismissed by a Division Bench of this court. While the appeal was pending before the Division Bench, the plaintiff -respondent filed an ejectment suit after issuing a composite notice under Sec, 106 of the Transfer of Property Act (hereinafter referred to as the T. P. Act) and Sec. 8J C. P C. which was served on the defendants on 20 -8 -1977. According to  £he notice, the tenancy was terminated with effect from 1 -10 -1977. Despite the service of the composite notice, According to the notice the defendant appellant did not vacate the promises and the plaintiff -respondent filed a suit on 4 -l -5977, In the suit, apart from seeking ejectment., compensation for use and occupation of the building from the defendant -appellant, at the rate of Rs, 1500/ per month was also claimed with effect from 1 -10 -1977. It was further averred in the plaint that the suit was governed by the Transfer of Property Act as the J & K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act was not applicable to the case. The defendants resisted the suit and in their written statement, inter alia, averred that the case was governed by the J & K Houses and Shops Rent Control Act and also that the suit had been instituted only with a view to get the rent enhanced. The validity of service of the composite notice under Sec. 80 C. P. C. and Sec. 106 T. P. Act was also questioned. The valuation of the suit was also disputed. The following issues came to be raised in the suit : 1 Whether the period of lease has expired and defendants tenancy has been determined by a valid notice with effect from 1 -10 -1977? OPP 2 Whether on proof of issue No. 1 the plaintiff is entitled to decree for ejectment and possession of the suit property ? OPP 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs. 1500/ - per month from the defendant with effect from l -10 -1977 as compensation for use and occupation of the suit premises ? OPP 4.Whether the. provisions of J and K Houses; and Shop Rent Control Act are applicable to the present suit ? OPD -2 5.Whether the notice of termination of lease served on defendants u/s 106. TPA and Sec. 80 CPC is not in accordance" with law ? OPD 6.Whether the suit has not, been properly valued for court -fees and jurisdiction ? If so, what is proper value of the suit? OPD 7 Whether the plaintiff has filed the suit only to coerce the defendants .to pay increased rent? OPD 8 Relief.
(3.) APART from producing documentary evidence in support of the case, the plaintiff examined four witnesses including himself, The defendants on their part examined two witnesses Learned trial court after a detailed .discussion decided issues 1,2, and 5, which were taken up together for discussion, in favour. of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Issue No. 3 was decided partly against the plaintiff and partly in favour of the defendants issue No. 4 was answered against the. the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff. Issue No.6 was not pressed before trial court and answered accordingly With regard to issue No, 7, the learned trial court and that the. issue had remained unsubstantiated, against the defendants. The relief granted by the trial court against issue No. 8 was a decree in favour of the plaintiff for ejectment as also for payment of compensation at the me of Rs. 330/ per month with effect from 1 -1,0 -1977, till the vacant possession of the suit premises is handed over to. She plaintiff. The defendants were granted a period of three months to handover the vacant possession to the plaintiff. Consequently the suit was decreed with costs.;


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