The judgment underscores the significance of pleading material facts, the burden of proof in landlord-tenant disputes, and the application of the Limitation Act, 1963 to claims for arrears of rent.

SINHA, J.

1. Being aggrieved with the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2013 passed in Eviction Suit No.3 of 2012 by the District Judge, Special Division-II at Gangtok, East Sikkim, the Appellant/Plaintiff has filed this Appeal. The Respondent/Defendant has also filed a Cross Objection against decision of Issue No.4. The Appeal and the Cross Objection both are being disposed of by this judgment.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are as under: -

2.1 The Appellant/Plaintiff is owner of the suit premises, i.e., a shop measuring 13’ x 33’ situated at Ranipool Bazar, East Sikkim. This shop was let out on rent by the Appellant to one Shri Ram Nath Prasad, husband of the Respondent/Defendant. Ram Nath Prasad, died on 17.03.2004 and the shop in question, thereafter, was being run by the Respondent. The Appellant came with the case that this shop was bonafidely required by him for personal occupation and rent of the shop was also not paid since July, 2002 till the filing of the suit on 20.04.2012, therefore, the Respondent be evicted from the said shop and a decree for arrears of rent in sum of Rs.1,61,506.00 be also passed in his favour.

2.2 Both the grounds, taken by the Appellant for eviction, were held as not proved, therefore, the trial court dismissed the suit for eviction. However, vide Issue No.4, it held that the Appellant was entitled to receive a sum of Rs.1,35,058.00 as arrears of rent due to him for the period between July 2002 to April 2009 excluding the period during which the Respondent was not in possession of the suit premises. The trial court took notice of the fact that the Respondent was evicted from the suit premises on 06.07.2006 by the order of the High Court and was again put back in possession thereof on 08.02.2008 by the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore, the Respondent was not liable to pay rent for the above period, i.e., from 06.07.2006 to 08.02.2008.

2.3 The Appellant being dissatisfied by the refusal of the decree of eviction in his favour, has come up in Appeal, in which the Respondent has filed her Cross Objection challenging the order passed on Issue No.4 relating to payment of arrears of rent.

3. Mr. Eklovya Rai Nagpal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, has argued that the finding on Issue No.3, i.e., the eviction sought on the ground of bonafide requirement, is erroneous and perverse. He referred to the various paragraphs of the evidence of Subhash Kumar Pradhan, Appellant (PW-1). He has argued that the take home salary of the Appellant was Rs.25,000.00; the Appellant was unable to make ends meet with the said take home salary; he has no alternative source of income, therefore, he required the suit premises bonafidely for running a grocery shop by his wife.

4. On the other hand, Mr. A. K. Upadhyaya, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, has opposed these arguments. He referred to the various admissions of the Appellant (PW-1) as also the contents of the notice issued by the Appellant to the Respondent. On direction to pay arrears of rent, he argued that even if it was held that the Appellant was entitled to receive arrears of rent which he had claimed, since the entire arrears was barred by limitation, therefore, the learned trial court ought to have directed for payment of arrears of rent of three years only and not beyond that. Therefore, the decree relating to payment of arrears of rent should be modified to the above extent.

5. Having heard Counsel for the parties, I have perused the records of the trial court.

6. Admittedly, the claim of the Appellant was based on the Notification No.6326-600-H&W-B of the Government of Sikkim issued on 14th of April, 1949. The above notification which is applicable to the area concerned, in paragraph 2, provides grounds for eviction. It provides that “The landlords cannot eject the tenants so long as the scarcity of housing accommodation lasts, but when the whole or part of the premises are required for