NAURANGLALL AGARWALA Vs. BASANT KUMARI SUD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the tenants-defendants against the judgment of the learned District Judge of Sikkim decreeing the suit filed against them by their landlord for their eviction and for recovery of khas possession of the premises tenanted to them and also for arrears of rent. Eviction has been claimed by the landlord on the ground of her requirement of the premises for her bona fide occupation as well as on the ground of default in payment of rent by the tenants, being the two of the three grounds on which "the landlord may evict the tenant" under the provisions of S.4 of the Gangtok Rent control and Eviction Act, 1956.

(2.) The learned District Judge has, however, decreed ejectment on the ground of bona fide requirement only and not on the ground of default, as he has found that though there were arrears of rent due justifying granting a decree for such arrears, the same was not legally sufficient to constitute a ground of ejectment under the provisions of Section 4 of the Gangtok Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1956, in view of the decision of this court in Shakuntala Bai v. K.N. Dewan (1977 Sikkim LJ 33). The plaintiff-respondent, having thus obtained a decree of ejectment in her favour, could have, under the provisions of O.41. R.22, Civil P.C. sought to support the decree, without preferring any cross-objection, also on the ground of the alleged default, though the said ground has been decided against her in the Court below. But Mr. N.K. Maitra, learned Advocate appearing for the landlord-respondent, has not tried to support the decree on the ground of requisite default in payment of rent and, therefore, this aspect, namely, whether the learned District Judge ought to have decreed ejectment on the ground of default also, need not be considered in this appeal. The tenants-appellants also have not challenged the decree so far it relates to the recovery of arrears of rent. Accordingly, the question relating to rents and the defaults or arrears made in payment thereof would require no consideration in this appeal, which, is, tberefore, confined to the only question as to, whether the plaintiff has been able to prove that the premises in question are required "for the bona fide occupation of the landlord or his dependents", justifying the decree of ejectment granted by the learned District Judge. Mr. S.R. Sarkar and then Mr. N.B. Kharga, learned Advocates appearing for the tenants-appellants have urged that the learned District Judge went entirely wrong in granting the decree for ejectment, while Mr. Maitra appearing for the landlord-respondent has contended that the learned District Judge was absolutely right.

(3.) The relevant provision of the Gangtok Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1956, contained in Section 4 thereof and providing for the grounds for ejectment of tenants of premises have been considered by this court in details in Paul Sangay v. Mahabir Prasad Agarwala (AIR 1980 Sikkim 13) and that being a Division Bench decision of this Court, the observations made therein are binding on me. It has been pointed out in Paul Sangay's case (supra) that the Act ex facie deals with the difficult problem of scarcity of accommodation and as the provisions thereof clearly demonstrate, is more protective of the interest of the tenants than of the landlords. The Act professes to control premises-tenancies and the rents therefor and the eviction of the tenants therefrom and to restrict and to put an embargo on the power of the landlords to evict tenants at their pleasure. Construing the analogous provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961, the Supreme Court has observed in D.N. Shanghavi v. Ambalal Tribhuwan Das (AIR 1974 SC 1026 at 1028) that "the direct and immediate object of the Act is to ensure occupation of accommodation by them who are in need of it" and that "broadly speaking, a construction which fulfils this purpose should be preferred to the alternative construction which frustrates it". To the same effect is the observation of the Supreme Court in the recent decision in Onkar Nath v. Ved Vyas (AIR 1980 SC 1218) where construing the similarly restrictive provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, it has been observed that "the statute benignly designed to protect tenants from unreasonable evictions has taken care to put restrictions which must be rigorously construed to fulfil the purpose of the Statute". These observations, which are of general applications to all cognate and allied legislations, should also apply to the construction of this Gangtok Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1956, the relevant provisions whereof, contained in Section 4, are reproduced hereinbelow :-