KRISHAN CHANDER GOYAL Vs. BAL KUMAR RASAILY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a tenant's appeal against the judgement and decree of eviction passed against him by the learned Additional District Judge, Sikkim, dated 30-4-1992.

(2.) Shri Hemlal Rasaily was the owner of the five storeyed building facing Lal Market road, Gangtok, detailed in the schedule to the plaint and the defendant/appellant Shri Krishna Chandra Goyal was the tenant under him in respect of one shop situated on the ground basement floor of that building on monthly rent of Rs. 215.00. He filed a suit for eviction of the appellant on 23-7-1986 on two grounds : the first ground being that he needed the premises for reconstruction and the other ground being that he required the premises for his youngest son, Shri Mani Kumar Rasaily, respondent No. 3, who was unemployed so that he could run his business therein. During the pendency of the suit, Shri Hemlal Rasaily died, whereupon the three respondents who are his sons were impleaded as his legal heirs.

(3.) During trial, the landlord did not press the ground for reconstruction and, therefore, the only ground on which eviction was ultimately claimed was the bona fide need for the use of plaintiff No. 3. The defendant has resisted the decree of eviction principally on two grounds. One is that the suit is not maintainable since the three sisters of the plaintiffs were not impleaded. The case of the plaintiffs is that the sisters did not inherit any share in the property left by their father, whereas, according to the defendant, the sisters also inherited and since they were not impleaded, the suit was bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The other ground on which eviction is resisted is that the plaintiffs did not have any bona fide necessity for the acco-mmodation in question and the suit has been filed only because he did not agree to enhance rent.