The central legal point established in the judgment is that a landlord can evict a tenant if the premises are required for the landlord's 'personal use' as per the rules framed by Notification No.6326?600-H &W?B dated 14-04-1949, even if the tenant's default in rent payment is not wilful.

Wangdi, J.

1. The Appellant in this Appeal seeks to set aside the judgment and decree dated 30-11-2011 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned judgment”) in Eviction Suit No.01 of 2010 passed by the Learned District Judge, Special Division – II, East Sikkim at Gangtok, by which the suit filed by the Respondent for eviction of the Appellant from the suit premises and for arrears of rents together with future rent was decreed.

2(a). In the original suit the Respondent’s case in so far as it is material for the purpose of this Appeal is that the Appellant was a tenant under him in respect of two premises out of which one was at the road level and the other at the basement at a monthly rent of ` 2100/- and ` 1100/-respectively exclusive of water, sewerage and electric charges, to be paid within the fifth day of each succeeding month with the month being computed as per the English calendar. That the Appellant had been irregular in payment of the rent commencing from the month of December, 2004 which he used to send through strangers and ultimately defaulted in doing so continuously from the month of September, 2007 to January, 2008 and, therefore, made himself liable to be ejected under the relevant law governing tenancy. It was also the case of the Respondent that he required the suit premises for his personal use as well as for the use of his family members who were residing with him. It was urged that the premises at the road level was required for starting business by his unemployed wife and daughter-in-law, the latter having issued with a trade licence for the business of tailoring and Mahihari items. The premises at the basement floor was required by the Respondent for settling his married son who along with his family was sharing in the same premises, as the Respondent, a retired ageing Secretary of the State Government, wanted his son to be near him in a separate establishment.

(b). It may be pertinent to note that apart from the above the Respondent had also alleged that the suit premises required thorough overhauling and repairs, that the Appellant had unauthorisedly inducted a large number of strangers to live with him and that he had tampered with the electric connection leading to the tenanted premises and also defaulted in payment of electricity, water and sewerage charges. However, parties chose not to address this Court on those and confined their arguments only on the question of personal use and default in payment of rent.

3(a). In the written statement filed on behalf of the Appellant the Respondent’s plea of requirement of the suit premises for his personal use was denied on the ground that apart from the suit premises there were others within the same building that were available which the Respondent could use for the purposes asserted by him.

(b). In so far as the allegation of default in payment of rent is concerned, it was not denied that there was no such default except to state that the Appellant had tendered the monthly rents for September and October, 2007 to the Respondent through his representatives but was refused by him and that after such refusal the Respondent desired that a fresh agreement of tenancy be executed and that the Appellant should desist from tendering rent through postal money orders. The Appellant thereafter was engaged in the medical treatment of his daughter and the death ritual of his parents till 25-02-2008 and returned to Gangtok only on 01-03-2008 after which he tendered the rents for the months of September, 2007 to January, 2008 to the Respondent through his representatives and that when it was refused he remitted those through postal money orders which also was refused by the Respondent.

4(a) Mr. A. Moulik, Senior Advocate, appearing for the Appellant, submitted that the ground for bona fide requirement set up by the Respondent cannot be sustained on the grounds as set out in the Plaint. As per him, the son of the Respondent apart from being employed lives with