RAM CHANDRA SHAH Vs. PHUP TSHERING BHUTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In spite of the very strenuous argument advanced by Mr. N.B.Kharga, the learned advocate for the appellant, I have not been able to discover any good reason for allowing this Appeal by the tenant-appellant against the decree of eviction passed against him in this Suit, giving rise to this Appeal, and the decree under Appeal would therefore stand.

(2.) The suit filed by the landlord-respondent against the tenant-appellant was for the eviction of the latter from the suit premises on the grounds, firstly, that the landlord-respondent required the suit premises bona fide for his own use and occupation and, secondly, that the tenant made unauthorised additions to and alterations of the suit-premises and, thirdly, that the tenant also caused damages to the suit premises.

(3.) As to the ground that the tenant made unauthorised additions to and alterations of the suit premises, the learned Judge has observed that "it will have no bearing on the decision of this suit as it is now well settled that no ground of addition and alteration to the building has been contemplated in Sec.4 of the Gangtok Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1956". The learned Judge's reading of Section 4 of the Rent Control and Eviction Act is correct as that section does not provide additions and alterations made to the premises by the tenant without the approval of the landlord as a ground far eviction. But the learned Judge ought to have noted that in Sec. 12 of that very Act unauthorised additions and alterations made by the tenant have clearly been made a ground for eviction of the tenant. The learned Judge, however, has made no finding as to the alleged additions and alterations and Mr. B.C. Sharma, the learned advocate appearing for the landlord-respondent, also could not seriously urge that the trial Judge ought to have decreed this suit on that ground also. It is true, as pointed out by this Court in Nauranglall v. Basant Kumari (AIR 1981 Sikkim 22), the plaintiff-respondent, having obtained a decree of eviction in his favour, could have, under the provisions of O.41, R.22, Civil Procedure Code, sought to support the decree, even without preferring any cross-objection, also an the ground of such additions and alterations having been made by the tenant, even though the learned Judge has not decreed the suit on that ground. But as the learned counsel for the respondent has not seriously pressed the issue in view of insufficient evidence therefore, this aspect need not detain me.