The judgment highlights the need for a comprehensive rent control legislation providing clear grounds for eviction and valid defenses for tenants.

Pius, J.

This Regular First Appeal is preferred by the defendants in Eviction Suit No. 06 of 2010 on the files of the District & Sessions Judge, Special Division-I, East and North at Gangtok, being aggrieved by the Decrees passed against them, inter alia, for recovery of arrears of rent for the period from the month of October, 2010 till September, 2011 and also for eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent continuously for a period of 4 (four) months. As the pleadings raised by the parties have been narrated in detail and almost accurately by the Court below in the impugned judgment, it is necessary to advert to them only very briefly.

2. The respondent is hereinafter referred to as the ‘landlord’ and the appellants are referred to as the ‘tenants’. The suit was instituted by the landlord seeking eviction of the tenants on the following 3 (three) grounds:-

(i) the defendants have defaulted for payment of rent continuously from the month of September, 2000 till the time of filing of the suit, i.e. on 14.09.2004;

(ii) the landlord intends to settle his eldest sons, who achieved their majority in age and are educated unemployed youths, in a Hotel business and Manihari shop proposed to be opened in the Schedule ‘A’ premises (the entire building which takes in the building occupied by the tenants also). The landlord is thus in bona fide requirement for his personal use and occupation of the Schedule ‘A’ premises for the above purpose; and

(iii) the ‘B’ Schedule premises (the building under the occupation of the tenants) has become dilapidated being quite old and also due to disrepair. The condition of the building is such that it requires repair and overhauling.

3. Apart from claiming eviction on the above three grounds, the plaintiff also sought for a decree of recovery of arrears of rent amounting to Rs.20,300/-being the rent, which had fallen due till the date of institution of the suit together with interest @18% p.a.

4. The tenants in the written statement filed by them would stoutly deny the allegations of the landlord regarding existence of three eviction grounds. The landlord’s allegation that the tenants had defaulted payment of rent and that he was entitled for a decree for recovery of arrears was also disputed. Various other contentions including a contention that the suit is barred by limitation were raised. The existence of the landlord-tenant relationship between the parties was also denied. Even the rate of rent alleged by the plaintiff was disputed.

5. The learned District Judge, on the basis of pleadings raised by the parties, formulated the following issues for trial:-

(viii) Whether the defendant is a monthly tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises or was the rent payable by the defendant on demand?

6. The parties went for trial on the basis of the above issues and at trial, the evidence on the side of the landlord consisted of 8 (eight) witnesses, PWs 1 to 8. PW-1 Shri Tashi Tshering Bhutia was landlord himself, PW-2 Shri Tshering Wangdi Bhutia was landlord’s father PW-3 Shri Karma Tshering Bhutia, PW-4 Shri Karma Wangdi Bhutia, PW-5 Shri Karma Dorjee Bhutia and PW-6 Shri Karma Topden Bhutia were sons of the landlord, for whose purpose also the landlord wanted to evict the tenants. PW-7 Shri Suk Deo Subba and PW-8 Shri Bhagwan Shah were independent witnesses, who were cited for proving the landlord’s case. On the side of the tenants, there were 3 (three) witnesses, DWs 1 to 3. DW-1 Shri Ajay Prasad was the son of the tenant Late Rameshwar Prasad. DW-2 Smt. Geeta Sharma was the post woman who has cited to prove the Money Order sent by the tenants to the landlord. DW-3 Shri Chundi

(i) Is the suit maintainable in its present form?

(ii) Is there any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and the defendant?

(iii) Did the plaintiff’s father purposely stop issuing rent receipts for rentals received by him from the defendant from February, 1991?

(iv) Was a notice of attornment