The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a holistic approach in interpreting the concept of requirement under the rent control legislation, considering the financial needs and retirement of the Plaintiff and his wife.

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. Assailing the Judgment and Decree passed by the Learned District Judge, East Sikkim, at Gangtok, in Eviction Suit No. 03 of 2014, vide Judgment dated 29-10-2015, in which the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff (the Respondent herein), the instant Appeal has been preferred.

2. The grounds raised in the Appeal, inter alia, were that, the Learned Trial Court had erred in arriving at the finding that the suit premises were required by the Plaintiff/Respondent for his bona fide occupation, when infact, it was required for his wife, purportedly for selling Computer spare parts and accessories and imparting Computer Training. That, the wife of the Respondent was never financially dependent upon him and, therefore, could not be considered as a "dependent" in terms of the Gangtok Rent Control and Eviction Act I of 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act of 1956").

3. The facts may briefly be traversed to appreciate the matter in its correct perspective. The Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter be referred to as the "Plaintiff") is the absolute owner of the property in dispute being a shop measuring 10' x 30', i.e., a total of 300 sq. ft., on the southern side of the ground floor, in a seven storied building by the name "Verma Building", located on the National Highway, Gangtok, East Sikkim, which fell in his partition share along with the entire second floor in the said building, vide a Partition Deed dated 15-06-2005. His father, Late Tek Chand Verma, had leased out the suit property to the Appellant No.1 (Defendant No.1 since deceased), mother of the Appellant No. 2, (hereinafter "the Defendant No. 2") for a period of ten years, vide a Lease Deed dated 19-07-1976, to run a Hardware Shop at a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- (Rupees six hundred) only, according to the English Calendar. It is averred in the Plaint that the suit premises is in the use of the Defendant No. 2 as his Office-cum-Shop for selling petty electrical and hardware articles in the name of "Minda Trade Agency", besides which he has other business of supplying hardware and electrical items from his warehouse, situated opposite the Police Headquarters, on the National Highway, after procuring the articles from Siliguri. That, the Defendant No. 1 had started residing permanently in Siliguri where both Defendants own a flat as also a flat in Gangtok, below M.G. Marg, opposite the Police Headquarters and a godown and therefore, do not require the suit premises. After the Plaintiff became the owner of the disputed property, he informed the Defendants of his ownership on which the Defendant No. 2 started depositing the monthly rent in the joint Savings Bank Account of the Plaintiff and his wife, Mrs. Sunila Verma. That, the Defendant No.1 has been allowed peaceful possession of the suit premises for the last thirty-six years from August, 1976 but, now the situation of the Plaintiff has completely changed as he is on the verge of retirement while his wife has already retired. They are in occupation of Government Quarters at Syari, Deorali, East Sikkim, which he will be required to vacate. The suit premises is bona fide required by him as after his retirement he is required to augment his income by running a Computer spare parts and accessories shop along with his wife for which a Trade Licence has been obtained in the name of his wife. He has to finance the medical education of his daughter anticipated at Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) only, to Rs. 8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakhs) only, per annum and subsequently, her marriage. That apart, being a Cardiac patient, he is likely to incur yearly medical expenditure expected to be about Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees seventy five thousand) only. Hence, the prayers enumerated in the Plaint.

4. In the Written Statement of the Defendants, it was, inter alia, averred that prior to five years the Defendant No. 2 was supplying electrical articles to Government Departments which has since been discontinued.