The court emphasized that the question of title is not required to be settled in an Eviction Suit and found that the Appellants had attorned to the Respondent, establishing the Respondent's bona fide requirement for the premises. The court also held that the Appellants were in default of payment of rent from January 2010 to 2017.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. The Appellants herein were ordered to vacate the suit premises of the Respondent on bona fide requirement of the Respondent and default in payment of rent by the Appellants, vide the Judgment dated 31.08.2017 in Eviction Suit No. 08 of 2014 (Shri Govind Agarwal v. Shri Rajendra Prasad Mangla and Another). Aggrieved, the Appellants herein are assailing it in Appeal.

2. The Respondent” s/Plaintiff’s case before the learned trial Court was that the suit property described in Schedule ‘A’ to the plaint comprising of a shop measuring 9x14½”, on the fourth floor of a five storeyed RCC building, along with a gully measuring 30?x60” and in the third floor of the same building rooms measuring a total area of 22?x45” and 11?x20” were rented out by the mother of the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter “Respondent”) to the Appellants/Defendants No. 1 and 2 (hereinafter “Appellants No. 1 and 2”), vide an Agreement dated 17.05.1978. The Appellant No. 1 is in continuous occupation of the said suit premises since 1978 with rent fixed at Rs.625/- (Rupees six hundred and twenty five) only, per month, excluding water and electricity charges. The third shop on the fourth floor which is rented to the Appellants, fell in the share of the Respondent by a verbal partition effected by his mother, late Saraswati Agarwal, between him and his two brothers. The Respondent’s wife carries on business in the adjacent shop, which fell in the share of his youngest brother, after duly obtaining his brother’s permission but the income there from is paltry. The Respondent’s specific case is that his family which includes his wife, brother-in-law and two sons who are pursuing higher education are entirely dependent on him, apart from which he suffers from several health issues, hence the requirement for the tenanted premises in order to augment his income. That apart, the Respondent has been compelled to take up premises at a monthly rent of Rs.7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand and five hundred) only, in Gangtok. That, on the other hand, the Appellant No. 1 is settled in Rangpo where he conducts business in his four storeyed RCC building. That, the Respondent’s mother who was receiving the house rent for the Schedule ‘A’ premises passed away on 21.01.2010 but despite knowledge of this fact, the Appellant No. 1 continued to remit the monthly rent by Money Order in her name. That, on 19.04.2013, the Respondent issued a Legal Notice to the Appellant No. 1 terminating the rent agreement dated 17.05.1978. The Appellant No. 1 sent a reply through their Lawyer dated 16.05.2013, Exhibit 12, implicitly revealing that the suit premises were in the occupation of his employees and was not in his own use. Later in response, to the Respondent’s letter dated 04.01.2014, Exhibit 13, the Appellant No. 1 sent another reply on 24.01.2014, Exhibit 14, allegedly reiterating the requirement of the suit premises for his employees. That, although the Appellant No. 1 sought to meet the Respondent to settle the matter amicably, he failed to appear on the dates fixed, hence the prayers in the plaint inter alia seeking eviction of the Appellants on grounds of bona fide requirement and default in rent.

3. The Appellants, in their written statement, denied and disputed the claims of the Respondent and pleaded ignorance of the partition amongst the Respondent and his two brothers. That, no proof of ownership of the suit premises by the Respondent has been furnished nor disclosure made with regard to who the rent was to be tendered to, hence the Appellant No. 1 has continuously been tendering rent in the name of the Respondent’s mother by Money Order. The question of default in rent does not arise as it is the Respondent who has failed to accept the rents tendered by him by Money Orders. The Appellants deny having any other business besides the tea business located in the tenanted premises. Admitting that the Appellant No. 1 lives in Rangpo, he specified that it was