The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the tenancy relationship between the parties and the liability of the Appellant as a tenant at sufferance. The judgment also emphasizes the assessment of damages and the award of mesne profits.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. This Appeal assails the Judgment and Decree, dated 19-04-2014, of the Learned District Judge, West Sikkim, at Gyalshing, in Eviction Suit No.02 of 2014, vide which the Learned Trial Court ordered as follows;

(i) That, the Plaintiff is entitled to a recovery of the arrears rent (sic) from the Defendant from the month of January, 2013 till the date of disposal of this case. However, in the interest of justice, there are no orders with regard to interest payable thereupon by the Defendant.

(ii) That, the Plaintiff is entitled to an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand) only, for the damage caused. Defendant is accordingly directed to vacate the suit premises by taking the heavy machine (sic) after paying the arrears of rent and amount of damages as mentioned above within one month from the date of this Judgment.

2. The primary ground pressed in Appeal was that, the Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that in the absence of a valid tenancy between the Appellant and the Respondent after 31-12-2012 and the surrender of the suit property by the Appellant, they were not liable to pay any rent and, therefore, no arrears of rent accrued. The next argument pivoted around the order of the Learned Trial Court directing the Defendant (hereinafter “the Appellant”), to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand) only, for causing damages to the suit property, without assessing the actual extent of the damage or ascertaining the real cause of the alleged damage to the suit property of the Plaintiff, (hereinafter “the Respondent”).

3. In order to appreciate the matter in its correct perspective, I deem it essential to advert to the facts of the case.

4. The Respondent is the absolute owner of a flat, measuring 1141.60 sq.ft., in a three storied RCC building situated at Soreng, West Sikkim, the property having been kept as “Jewni” (property for lifetime), by herself and her husband, Late Bhakta Bahadur Chettri, consequent to a family partition dated 05-12-1993. In 1993, the said property was leased out to the Appellant for a monthly rent of Rs.2,665/- (Rupees two thousand, six hundred and sixty five) only, for a period of five years from 13-04-1993, in terms of Exhibit 3, the Lease Deed document. A Clause existed in the Lease Deed that the Lessee shall have the option of renewing the Lease of the said premises for further periods, on giving Notice of such intention, to the Lessor at least three months prior to expiration of the Lease. The Lessee, however, failed to take necessary steps as provided, hence on expiry of the lease period the Respondent’s husband vide letter, marked Document “X” (before the Learned Trial Court), requested the Appellant to either increase the house rent by 30% or to vacate the occupied premises. This request was communicated by the concerned Divisional Engineer of the Appellant’s Company to the Executive Engineer at Siliguri, West Bengal, in vain. That, the premises thereafter continued to be in the occupation of the Appellant at the previously fixed monthly rent of Rs.2,665/- (Rupees two thousand, six hundred and sixty five) only, duly collected by the Respondent allegedly on the belief that the Lease Deed would be renewed and rent revised. On the demise of the Respondent’s husband on 04-04-2008, the rent was sent in the name of the Respondent’s daughter, Tara Devi Chettri, who continued to collect it till August 2012, after which no house rent was forthcoming. The Appellant, vide letter dated 27-09-2012 intimated the Respondent that the suit property would be handed over on 31-12-2012 and the said letter be treated as “Notice” of three months. That, on checking the suit premises it was found to be in a dilapidated condition which the Appellant was bound to repair before handing over. The prayers of the Appellant were for enhanced rent from the period February 1998, to August 2012, @ Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only, per month, dul