LAXUMAN PRASAD Vs. JAGDISH PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (i). Eviction Suit No. 6 of 2011 was filed by the Respondent -Plaintiff, Jagdish Prasad, against the Appellant -Defendant, Shri Laxuman Prasad, in respect of a shop room measuring about 10' x 25' on the road level at Singtam, East Sikkim, on grounds of default in payment of house rent, requirement of the premises for the purpose of his personal use and occupation and, also for the Appellant -Defendant having used the premises rashly and negligently rendering it in a state of disrepair. (ii) The Learned Principal District Judge, East Sikkim at Gangtok, while rejecting the ground of default decreed the suit in favour of the Respondent -Plaintiff by finding that he required the suit premises bona fide for his personal use and occupation and for the purpose of thorough overhauling by her impugned judgment dated 15 -05 -2014. It is against this judgment that the Appeal has been preferred.

(2.) (i). The Respondent -Plaintiff's case was that he is the absolute owner of the four storied RCC building situated at Sirwani Road, Singtam, East Sikkim in which the Appellant -Defendant is a tenant in respect of a shop at the road level measuring about 10' x 25' at a monthly rent of Rs. 2,510/ -. It was alleged that the Appellant -Defendant had defaulted in payment of house rent for the premises from the month of January, 2011, rendering himself a defaulter apart from him having failed to pay electricity charges from the month of January, 2011 and, also using the premises rashly and negligently. It was averred that the Respondent -Plaintiff required the suit premises for his personal bona fide use as he was in need of it for running his business since he had been evicted from the rented premises of one Tashi Tshering Bhutia where he was running his business. It was under the compelling circumstances arising from the order of eviction that the Respondent -Plaintiff had shifted his shop to a godown on the basement of his own building which, as per him, measured only 7' x 6', the other portion of the building adjacent to the suit premises on the road level having been already occupied by his eldest son, who had separated from the family, where he was running his shop. (ii) It was stated that the Respondent -Plaintiff had requested the Appellant -Defendant to vacate the suit premises as he required it for his bona fide use to run his business which the Appellant -Defendant refused to accede. A legal notice dated 29 -10 -2010 issued to the Appellant -Defendant also went unheeded and instead, by a reply from his Advocate, asked the Respondent -Plaintiff to withdraw his legal notice. Efforts made to settle the matter with the intervention of the Municipal Councillor and local gentries also failed to evoke any response from the Appellant -Defendant. It was further averred that the suit premises was also required by the Respondent -Plaintiff to settle his youngest son and grandson in business to be run in the suit premises. That although the youngest son had obtained a trade licence in the year 2002 for running a ready -made furniture business, he was unable to start it due to lack of space on refusal by the Appellant -Defendant to vacate the suit premises. It was further stated that the Appellant -Defendant owned a two storied RCC building near the Singtam Bridge, 31A National Highway from where he could conveniently run his business. Under these circumstances, that the Respondent -Plaintiff, inter alia, prayed for a decree of eviction of the Appellant -Defendant from the suit premises.

(3.) IN his written statement, the Appellant -Defendant denied all material allegations in the plaint. It was denied that he was a defaulter in payment of rent and payment of electricity charges. That the eldest son of the Respondent -Plaintiff, Nanda Kishore Prasad, had not separated but was rather living in a joint family with the Respondent -Plaintiff sharing a common kitchen. It was asserted that even though the business of the Respondent -Plaintiff was being run in the basement of his building, it was doing well and that the Respondent -Plaintiff and his youngest son, Jugal Kishore Prasad, were carrying on joint business in the room occupied by his eldest son, Nanda Kishore Prasad.