DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO LTD Vs. S PARAMJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE First Appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by Sub -Judge (C. J. M.), Jammu on December 2, 1981 in Civil Original Suit No. 99 of 1979. The learned trial court after recording evidence and hearing the respective parties on all the issues raised before him decreed the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No. 1 in this case holding that the income of the appellant exceeds Rs 40,000/ - annually, hence he is not entitled to the protection granted under the J&K Houses & Shops Rent Control Act, 1966 (hereinafter called the Act). The tenant/appellant being aggrieved against the said judgment and decree filed this first appeal.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that the suit premises, the shop in question situated at Vir Marg, Jammu belongs to respondent No. 1, which was let out by him to the present appellant, The Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. on a monthly rent of Rs. 500/ - with effect from April 1, 1971. The rent deed was executed for an initial period of 11 months. After the expiry of the lease period, the appellant continued as tenant holding over of the shop till the notice of termination was issued and served on the appellant terminating the tenancy on the expiry of April 30, 1979. It is further stated that the appellants annual income being more than Rs. 40, OOO/ - is not entitled to the protection under the Act, hence this suit for restoration of possession. Respondent No. 1, plaintiff apart from that ground also claimed eviction of the appellant from the said shop on the ground of his own need as well as sub -letting by the appellant.

(3.) THE suit was contested by the respondents. A preliminary objection was raised on the plea that the provisions of the Act in so far as they make discrimination on the basis of their income is unconstitutional and ultra vires the provisions of the Constitution of India as made applicable to the State of Jammu & Kashmir with a further allegation that the suit has been filed with the ulterior object of getting the rent of the premises enhanced illegally. In the detailed submissions, it has been stated that initially the suit shop was taken on a monthly rent of Rs. 150/ -in the year 1958 from the father of the plaintiff The rent, however, was increased by the Company from time to time and it has not been disputed that in 1971, i.e., when the fresh lease, was executed, the rent was fixed at Rs. 500/ - per month. Regarding provisions of Section 1 (3) clause (iii), it is stated that it is discriminatory and against the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The personal necessity and sub -letting was also denied. Even the receipt of the notice alleged by the plaintiff terminating the tenancy of the appellant is also denied. However, there is no denial of the fact that the annual income of the appellant exceeds Rs. 40,000/ -, which was initially before the amendment of plaint was Rs. 20,000/ -, which stood corrected after amendment to Rs. 40,000/ -.