The expression "landlord" in Section 4 of the Gangtok Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1956 cannot be construed to include members of his family or any other person, whether dependent upon him or not, as that would amount to adding words to the provisions of the enactment and thus to redraft the same.

BHATTACHARJEE, J. :- The suit which has wended its way to this Court in this appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge, Sikkim at Gangtok, by the plaintiff-landlord against the defendant tenant for the recovery of arrears of rent and for the ejectment of the defendant from the premises held by him under the plaintiff as described in the schedule of the plaint, being "one shop-room with two rooms behind it with a verandah at the, fourth storey (third floor) of an R. C. C. building situated at Mahatma Gandhi Marg, Gangtok Bazar". The suit has been decreed by the learned District judge by his Judgement dated 19-10-1978, whereby the claims of the plaintiff for the ejectment of the defendant and also for the arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 450/- have been allowed and the defendant has preferred this appeal against the aforesaid judgement and decree.

2. The case of the plaintiff, stated briefly, is that the plaintiff is the owner of the premises in dispute, hereinafter referred to as the suit-premises, and the defendant is a tenant under him at a monthly rental of Rs. 150/- only; the further case of the plaintiff is that originally the defendant took the tenancy for a period of one year only from 1-3-68 and executed a written agreement to that effect on 7-3-68 and that, after the expiry of the said period, when the plaintiff asked the defendant to vacate the possession of the premises, the defendant requested him to allow the defendant to continue possession of the suit-premises on the same rent as before on the understanding that the defendant would vacate the same as and when the plaintiff would need the premises and would ask the defendant to vacate the same. The plaintiff's case is that he began to request the defendant to vacate the premises since the month of Dec., 1974, but that the defendant refused to comply with his request and as a result the plaintiff served a notice dated 10-10-1975 upon the defendant asking him to deliver possession of the premises within two months and also to clear off the arrears of rent due up-to-date. But, the plaintiff alleges, instead of vacating the premises and paying off the dues, the defendant started depositing the rent and electric charges in Court; the amount so deposited has covered the rent and electricity charges for the months of Oct. and Nov., 1975, and the defendant having already paid the rents up to the month of June, 1975, an amount of Rs. 450/- being the rent due for the months of July, Aug. and Sept., 1975 has remained due.

3. The plaintiff's further case, as made out in paragraph 9 of the plaint, is that the plaintiff reasonably and bona fide needs the suit-premises and the case of the plaintiff for such requirement is based mainly on two grounds. The first ground is that as per the approved plan of the building in question, only four storeys were completed and the plaintiff has now been served with a notice by the Bazar Department to complete the construction up to the fifth storey in accordance with the original plan and that as the flight of steps leading from the fourth storey as per the approved plan would have to be constructed from inside the suit-premises, the construction of the fifth storey cannot be proceeded with unless the defendant. vacates the premises The second ground made out by the plaintiff is that apart from two married daughters and one unmarried daughter, the plaintiff has three sons, of whom the eldest one Chiranjilal is aged about 22 years and the second son Khemchand is aged about 20 years and they "want to start their own independent business".

4. The defendant has contested the suit by filing written statement, admitting therein that he took the tenancy originally for a period of one year only as alleged by the plaintiff and executed a written agreement to that effect. But the case of the defendant is that after the expiry of the period of one year there was an understanding between the parties that the tenancy in question would con