A landlord is the sole arbiter of their bona fide requirement for property use. A tenant cannot dictate the landlord's property utilization, and failure to pay stipulated rent, coupled with the expiration of a lease, constitutes valid grounds for eviction.

JUDGMENT

Meenakshi Madan Rai, J.

1. This Appeal questions the Judgment of the District Judge, Special Division – I, Gangtok, Sikkim, in Eviction Suit No.06 of 2020 (Smt. Anikit Lepcha and Others vs. Mahesh Chandra Sharma), dated 16-04-2024, which decreed the suit of the Plaintiffs (Respondents herein) and directed the Appellant (Defendant) to hand over vacant possession of the tenanted premises, within three months of the pronouncement of the impugned Judgment.

2. The original Plaintiff, Tshering Dorjee Lama (the husband of the present Plaintiff No.1) was duly substituted by her on his demise, vide the Order of the Trial Court, dated 10-04-2023 and arrayed as Plaintiff No.1. Their daughters Yangchen Tshering Lama and Peden Tshering Lama, were arrayed as Plaintiffs No.2 and 3 respectively.

3. The parties shall be referred to by their litigative status during trial.

4. Before delving into the merits of the matter, the facts are briefly enumerated herein. The Respondents as Plaintiffs filed a suit for eviction and other consequential reliefs before the Court of the District Judge, East Sikkim, at Gangtok. Their case is that the Appellant, the Defendant before the Trial Court is a businessman, involved in the trade and services of automobile and other accessories. He is in occupation of the second and third floors of a building which was recorded in the name of the original Plaintiff. The occupation of the second floor of the building as his business premises was from the year 2001 with a monthly rent of ₹ 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand) only and thereafter from February, 2019, he is also in occupation of the third floor of the building as his residential premises, vide agreement between the parties dated 08-02-2019, for both premises. The total rent for both the premises was fixed at ₹ 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only, per month.

(i) That, as Plaintiff No.2 has completed her studies she seeks to begin her practice in law and is therefore in bona fide requirement of the second floor of the scheduled building, which is in the occupation of the Defendant. Besides, no rent was paid by him for both premises from February, 2020, hence the third floor also ought to be vacated by the Defendant on grounds of default of payment of rent.

(ii) The prayers in the Plaint inter alia are for eviction of the Defendant from the suit premises which are the second and third floor of the RCC building, recorded in the name of the original Plaintiff (Tshering Dorjee Lama). A Decree for recovery of arrears of rent amounting to ₹ 1,35,000/- (Rupees one lakh and thirty five thousand) only, along with future rents @ ₹ 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand) only, per month, and costs of the suit.

(iii) The Defendant contrarily averred inter alia that, since 2001, till date he is a „tenant’ in the suit premises as defined under Notification No.6326-600 H&W-B, dated 14-04-1949, of the Government of Sikkim. That, the lease deed, dated 08-02-2019, executed with the Plaintiffs is an unregistered document, his signature having been obtained therein surreptitiously, under duress, taking advantage of his old age. He claims to be eighty years of age. He denied the allegation of non-payment of rent or that the Plaintiff No.2 was in bona fide requirement of the premises.

(iv) The Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of the parties settled the following issues for determination;

“(1) Whether the plaintiff is in bona fide requirement of the suit premises or not?

(2) Whether the defendant has defaulted in payment of the monthly rent