The main legal point established in the judgment is that the landlord's bona fide requirement for own occupation of the tenanted premises, as contemplated by rent control legislation, should be examined based on the sincerity and honesty of the landlord's desire, and the landlord's need should be considered natural, real, and sincere.

Wangdi, J.

1. These three Appeals are taken up together as they pertain to the suit premises occupied by the Appellants-Defendants in the same building owned by the Respondent-Plaintiff at Jorethang, South Sikkim and involve common questions which can be disposed of by a common judgment.

2. The Appellants-Defendants in these Appeals seek to assail the judgments and decrees dated 31-03-2014 passed by the Learned District Judge, South Sikkim at Namchi decreeing the Eviction Suits against the Appellants-Defendants for the eviction from the suit premises directing that vacant possession of the tenanted premises be handed over to the Respondent-Plaintiff within a period of three months from the date of the impugned judgments.

3. Initially, Eviction Suits No.04, 05 and 01 of 2008 were filed by the Respondent-Plaintiff against the Appellants-Defendants in RFA Nos.07, 06 and 05 of 2013 respectively from each of the premises held by them as tenants under the Respondent-Plaintiff on the grounds of default in payment of rent, necessity of the premises for the purpose of its thorough overhauling and for bona fide use and personal occupation of the Respondent-Plaintiff. These Eviction Suits were dismissed by judgments dated 26-12-2012 by the Learned District Judge, South and West Sikkim at Namchi against which the Respondent-Plaintiff preferred RFA Nos.07, 06 and 05 of 2013 respectively before this Court.

4. The Appeals were heard by a Single Bench constituted by the then Hon’ble Chief Justice who upon hearing upheld the findings of the Learned Trial Court that the Respondent-Plaintiff had failed to make out the case of default and requirement of the suit premises for thorough overhauling set up by her but, was pleased to remand the case for a fresh decision on the one pertaining to her claim of requirement of the premises for her personal use and occupation by judgment dated 26-07-2013. It was held that the Respondent-Plaintiff ought to be given an opportunity to adduce further evidence of substantiating that the claim projected by her for commencement of Nursing Home is a genuine one and that the same is not a ruse to evict the tenants. It was accordingly directed that the Respondent-Plaintiff should be permitted to adduce whatever further evidence she wants to adduce in support of her claim for eviction on the ground of her own occupation and also to permit the tenants to do so to counter the additional evidence produced by the Respondent-Plaintiff.

5. On the case thus being remanded, the Learned Trial Court took up the only surviving issue to be decided by it, i.e., whether the Appellants-Defendants are liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the Respondent-Plaintiff. This was the common issue in all the three Suits.

6. In pursuance of the direction contained in judgment dated 26-07-2013 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in the Appeals, the Respondent-Plaintiff examined two witnesses, namely, Dr. Pratima S. Bharati (Sharma) and Dr. Manoj Bharati, who are the eldest sister and brother-in-law respectively of the Respondent-Plaintiff and, the Appellants-Defendants examined seven more witnesses including themselves as additional evidence and exhibited several additional documents.

7. On consideration of the oral and documentary evidence and after hearing the parties, the Learned Trial Court decided the issue in favour of the Respondent-Plaintiff and accordingly passed a decree ordering eviction of the Appellants-Defendants from the respective premises held by them vide judgments dated 31-03-2014.

8(i). Although, in the Memo of Appeals several grounds have been taken to assail the impugned judgments of the Learned Trial Court, however, during the arguments, Mr. A. Moulik, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Appellants-Defendants, primarily raised the following:-

(a) The ground of personal occupation set up by the Respondent-Plaintiff was not bona fide but, only a pretext