ASHOK KUMAR RAI Vs. GIRMI GOPARAMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant in this Appeal seeks to set aside the judgment and decree dated 30-11-2011 (hereinafter referred to as the "impugned judgment") in Eviction Suit No.01 of 2010 passed by the Learned District Judge, Special Division � II, East Sikkim at Gangtok, by which the suit filed by the Respondent for eviction of the Appellant from the suit premises and for arrears of rents together with future rent was decreed.

(2.) IN the original suit the Respondent's case in so far as it is material for the purpose of this Appeal is that the Appellant was a tenant under him in respect of two premises out of which one was at the road level and the other at the basement at a monthly rent of Rs. 2100/- and Rs. 1100/- respectively exclusive of water, sewerage and electric charges, to be paid within the fifth day of each succeeding month with the month being computed as per the English calendar. That the Appellant had been irregular in payment of the rent commencing from the month of December, 2004 which he used to send through strangers and ultimately defaulted in doing so continuously from the month of September, 2007 to January, 2008 and, therefore, made himself liable to be ejected under the relevant law governing tenancy. It was also the case of the Respondent that he required the suit premises for his personal use as well as for the use of his family members who were residing with him. It was urged that the premises at the road level was required for starting business by his unemployed wife and daughter-in-law, the latter having issued with a trade licence for the business of tailoring and Mahihari items. The premises at the basement floor was required by the Respondent for settling his married son who along with his family was sharing in the same premises, as the Respondent, a retired ageing Secretary of the State Government, wanted his son to be near him in a separate establishment.

(3.) MR. K. T. Bhutia, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the Respondent has been successful in establishing the personal requirement as pleaded by the Respondent in view of the unimpeachable evidence on record in proof thereof. Although, it was a fact that the son was employed in Government service this, however, did not detract from the established evidence of the need of wife of the Respondent and his daughter-in-law in respect of a portion of the suit premises to set up a business and the other portion for its conversion as a garage to park the vehicle. The fact of the son being employed also cannot unsettle the factum of his requiring suit premises at the basement floor for settling his son as pleaded and proved by the Respondent. As per him, the Appellant has not been able to disprove these facts and that the Respondent has been fully supported by his witnesses in their unshaken evidence.