The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Notification of 1949 and Clause 10 of the Tenancy Agreement, emphasizing the landlord's right to evict the tenant for personal occupation or overhauling and the tenant's obligation to vacate upon receiving a notice from the landlord.

JUDGMENT :

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. This Appeal assails the common Judgment and Decree, dated 30-11-2015 of the Learned District Judge, South District, at Namchi, in Eviction Suit No. 13 of 2013 and Eviction Suit No.1 of 2014, decreeing the Suit of the Respondent in terms of his prayer in Eviction Suit No.13 of 2013, seeking a declaration that he is entitled to enjoy his tenanted premises free from undue harassment and interference from the Appellant, her agents or servants, till such time that he is evicted by due course of Law.

2. The Respondent herein, filed Eviction Suit No.13 of 2013, against the Appellant herein, (hereinafter referred to as “Respondent” and “Appellant” respectively), under Notification No.6326—600-H&W—B of the Health and Works Department, Government of Sikkim, dated 14-04-1949 (for short “Notification of 1949”), inter alia, praying for a declaration that he is entitled to enjoy the rented premises as detailed hereinabove, as also a declaration for prohibitory injunction, restraining the Defendant (Appellant), her agents and servants from giving undue harassment to the Plaintiff (Respondent) in the enjoyment and occupation of rented premises till final disposal of the Suit.

3. The facts briefly sketched are that the Respondent a businessman, was the tenant of the Appellant and occupying a room measuring 12 feet x 15 feet for business purposes, in the ground floor of her four storied building, situated in Jorethang Bazar, South Sikkim, from the year 1992 on a verbal agreement, with rent fixed at a sum of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees one thousand) only. After 1994, the rent was enhanced every three years by the Appellant. In July, 2011, the parties executed a Tenancy Agreement for eleven months, i.e., till June, 2012, after which the parties entered into a fresh Agreement for another period of eleven months, i.e., July, 2012 to June, 2013, fixing the monthly rent at Rs.4,500/- (Rupees four thousand and five hundred) only, with assurances by the Appellant of no further enhancement. No sooner was the second Agreement executed, she demanded enhanced monthly rent of Rs.4,950/- (Rupees four thousand nine hundred and fifty) only, which the Respondent being in a disadvantageous position, viz.; requiring the premises for business was constrained to pay. Having thus violated the terms of the Agreement, she also declared that no further Tenancy Agreement would be executed between them. The second Tenancy Agreement thus expired on 30-06-2013, but he continued as a tenant on verbal assurances and commitments. The Respondent’s contention was that as Jorethang has now become a Commercial Hub, the Appellant intends to evict him and hand over the suit premises to Private Companies at a higher rent, despite no default by him in payment of monthly rent. In pursuance of this motive, on 24-07-2013 the Appellant issued a Notice denying further renewal of the Tenancy Agreement and when he was out of station on 04-12-2013, asked him to vacate the suit premises, which was repeated on 12-12-2013 and thereafter with increasing frequency. Apprehending illegal eviction from the suit premises which would lead to a pecuniary loss of Rs.2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only, or more per day, the Suit was filed.

4. The Appellant while denying and disputing the claims made by the Respondent averred that the suit premises is required for the bona fide use and occupation of her dependent sons as stated in the Eviction Notice served by her to the Respondent, apart from which the Respondent is a defaulter having failed to pay the rent and electricity charges and is thus liable to be evicted. It is further asserted that the Respondent owns a shop house in Jorethang and ought to shift therein to enable the Appellant and her sons to run their own business. That, the provision of Law relied on by the Respondent does not enable him to file the Suit which may be dismissed.

5. In Eviction Suit No.1 of 2014, the Appellant herein was the Plaintiff while the Respondent