The term 'personal occupation' in Clause 2 of the 1949 Notification extends to the occupation and requirement of not only the landlord but also his dependants.

JUDGMET :

Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, J.

1. The suit for eviction, recovery of possession and mense profit was filed by the Respondent before the Court of the learned District Judge (East and North), East Sikkim at Gangtok, against the tenant, the Appellant herein. Various grounds for eviction were taken. The solitary ground which is being contested in the present appeal is the requirement of the suit premises for the personal occupation of the landlord, the Respondent herein.

2. The suit premises is situated at Pakyong Bazar, East Sikkim and therefore, “Notification no. 6326-600/H & WB dated 14.04.1949 (1949 Notification) regulating letting and sub letting of premises etc.” issued by the then Health & Works Department, is the law applicable. Clause 2 of the 1949 Notification is relevant and quoted below:

“2. The landlords cannot eject the tenants so long as the scarcity of housing accommodation last, but when the whole or part of the premises are required for their personal occupation or for thorough overhauling the premises or on failure by the tenants to pay rent for four months the landlords may be permitted to evict the tenant on due application to the Chief Court.”

3. On 27.08.2013 the learned District Judge framed four issues. Issue no.1 is the relevant issue i.e. “1. Whether Plaintiff is in bonafide requirement of the suit property?”

4. The Respondent examined himself, his wife-Purna Kumari Basnett his daughter-Puspanjali Basnett, his son- Praveen Basnett and Dr. Chandra Shekher Sharma a Psychiatric at STNM Hospital, Gangtok. The Appellant examined himself, Subash Prasad Gupta, a businessman in Pakyong Bazar, Bhagnarayan Sharma, a carpenter of Pakyong Bazar and Md. Shafi Mohammad also a businessman of Pakyong Bazar.

5. The learned District Judge examined the said issue of bonafide requirement and held that the Respondent has been able to prove that their house at Namcheybong is in dilapidated condition. The learned District Judge also came to the conclusion that the Respondent had been able to prove that he was under medication as he was unwell and suffering from schizoaffective disorder. It was held that the Respondent had also been able to show that the suit premises were required for the personal occupation of the Respondent i.e. for the occupation of his dependent son and daughter. It was held that therefore, the Respondent was successful in establishing his claim of bonafide requirement and personal occupation. A decree of eviction was accordingly passed against the Appellant. The impugned judgment dated 30.09.2015 passed by the learned District Judge in Eviction Suit No. 05 of 2013 is challenged.

6. Heard Mrs. Laxmi Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Zangpo Sherpa, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

7. At the outset it must be noticed that Clause 2 of the 1949 Notification provides for eviction of the tenant when the whole or part of the premises are required on the ground of “personal occupation” of the landlord. The Respondent had sought eviction on several grounds. A holistic reading of the plaint suggests that the Respondent required the suit premises as his Namchebong house was in a dilapidated condition; due to his fear about the high tension electricity line running above his Namcheybong house endangering their lives; his ill health including mental illness for which he desired to accommodate a help; to accommodate his growing children who did not have adequate personal space in the Namcheybong house and who were pestering him for it which was causing him mental stress; to establish them in business as they were completing their education and generally to have a larger accommodation for the family. The requirement of the Respondent for the suit premises consisting of two rooms of the building owned by him was for his own requirement as well as for the requirement of his children who were pursuing their education. That “personal occupation” of the landlord includes the requirement of the dependents as