The main legal point established in the judgment is the applicability of notice requirement under the Rules of 1949 and the provisions of Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, and the entitlement of the plaintiff to recovery of rent arrear with interest.

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.

1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30th May, 2015, passed in Eviction Suit No. 01 of 2012, wherein and whereunder the suit filed by the respondent herein/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "the plaintiff") was decreed holding that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for recovery of possession of the suit premises from the appellant herein/defendant (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant"). Also a decree for arrears of rent of the suit premises to the tune of Rs. 2,88,000/- was granted. The suit premises, as described in the plaint, was all that two rooms, front and back, with attached bathrooms at the ground floor measuring 15' x 30' and 10' x 30' respectively and the entire first floor measuring an area of 60' x 30' consisting of six rooms with attached toilet-cum-bathroom, one kitchen and one small open hall, with three unfinished rooms and with vacant area of the terrace of one three storied RCC building situated at Road No. 1, Jorethang Bazaar, South Sikkim.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit seeking eviction against the defendant from the aforementioned suit premises on two grounds. Firstly, bona fide requirement of the first floor and secondly, default in payment of rent from December, 2006 and also thereafter from December, 2010, even after giving an undertaking dated 13th November, 2010 (Exhibit - 17). During pendency of the suit, the mother of the plaintiff, for whom the first floor of the suit premises was required bona fide, expired on 10th May, 2013. Thus, the ground of bona fide was neither pressed nor considered while examining the suit.

3. The case of the plaintiff was that a tenancy agreement dated 21st November, 1982 (Exhibit - 4) was executed between the father of the plaintiff and the defendant for a portion of the premises measuring 15' x 30', for a period of one year, on a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- payable within the first week of every month. Thereafter, one more agreement dated 30th May, 1995 (Exhibit - 5) was executed between them for the entire first floor of the suit premises on rental of Rs. 1700/- per month for a period of one year, stipulating that the rental would be payable within seventh day of the succeeding month. Thus, the entire suit premises in question came into the possession of the defendant as tenant. One more agreement, which has come on record, was executed on 1st February, 1999 (Exhibit - 6), wherein the rent was fixed at Rs. 3,500/- per month for the shop house on the front portion of the ground floor measuring 15' x 30', Rs. 1,000/- per month for back portion shop house measuring 10' x 30' of the same building between the room and the passage for the first floor and Rs. 2,000/- per month for the first floor of the same building measuring 60' x 30' and the total rent payable was fixed at Rs. 6,500/- per month stipulating that the payment of rent would be made within first week of every subsequent month. The tenancy agreement further stipulates a condition that the defendant shall vacate the premises on or before 31st January, 2000. One more agreement appears to have been executed on 1st April, 2001 (Exhibit - 7) for the same premises on the same rent, wherein it was conditioned that the premises shall be vacated by the defendant on 31st March, 2002. It is brought to my notice that clause 9 of the agreement prescribes for giving three months notice in writing to the defendant, requiring the defendant to vacate the premises in question. It is also revealed that there was a condition in the agreement that if the defendant makes default in payment of monthly rent for two consecutive months or if he violates or infringes any of the terms and conditions contained therein, the landlord will be entitled to determine the agreement and re-enter the premises.

4. The plaintiff has produced one document (Exhibit - 8), seemingly signed on 16th April, 2002 under the caption "Bandobast Letter" extending the tenancy for one more