Hira Lal vs Bodh Raj

This is a civil second appeal and arises out of a suit instituted by plaintiff landlord for ejectment of the defendant from a shop situated in City

Chowk, Jammu. The plaintiff alleged that he needed the shop for his personal use as he wanted to start his own business in that shop. The

defendant resisted the suit on the ground that the plaintiff had no personal necessity for the shop as he was engaged in transport business and did

not need the shop for any other business. The trial Court of Subordinate Judge, Jammu, found that although, the plaintiff needed the shop for his

personal use but considering the balance of convenience and comparative advantage or disadvantage resulting from ejectment of the tenant it came

to the conclusion that the defendant tenant will be put to greater disadvantage by his ejectment than the advantage which will come accrue to the

landlord by that ejectment. In other words, the trial Court found that the plaintiff has not been able to show that he reasonably required the shop

for his own use in terms of section 11 (1) (h) of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act read with the Explanation thereto. The plaintiff's suit was

dismissed. On appeal the learned District Judge affirmed the finding arrived at by the trial Court and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff

has come up in further appeal to this Court.

It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the Courts below have erred in dismissing the plaintiff's suit when they clearly found that the shop was

needed by the plaintiff for his personal use. We have gone through the judgments of the Courts below and have examined the evidence adduced by

the plaintiff. It is true that the plaintiff needed the .shop to start some business, but in order to secure ejectment of the tenant it was necessary for

the plaintiff landlord to prove the ingredients of section 11 (!) (h) of the Houses and Shops Rent Control Act read with the Explanation thereto, that

is, he should have shown that he reasonably required the shop for his own use and in determining reasonableness of requirement for occupation the

Courts have to go into comparative advantage or disadvantage of the landj lord and that of the tenant. Both the Courts below: on the basis of

evidence unanimously held that by? ejectment of the tenant he will have to face hardship not for himself but for his whole family who are entirely

depending upon the business run in that shop. In other words, the Courts below have clearly found that the tenant will be put to greater

disadvantage than the comparative advantage which will accrue to the landlord by the former's ejectment. This is a finding of fact concurrently

recorded by the Courts below which cannot be interfered with in second appeal. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed but in the circumstances of

the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs in this Court.