SMT. RATNA PRADHAN Vs. SHRI KISHAN DEO THAKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in this Appeal is to the Judgment and Decree, dated 30-06-2015, of the Learned District Judge, South Sikkim, at Namchi, in Eviction Suit No. 14 of 2013, "Ratna Pradhan v. Kishan Deo Thakur". The Learned Trial Court vide the impugned Judgment held that the Plaintiff was not entitled to the reliefs prayed for by her and dismissed the Eviction Suit.

(2.) The facts leading to the dispute are that, the Plaintiff/Appellant (hereinafter "Plaintiff") is the owner of a four storied RCC building measuring 20' x 30' in Jorethang Bazaar, South Sikkim. The Defendant/Respondent (hereinafter "Defendant") has been a tenant since 1997, in a portion of the ground floor of the building, measuring approximately 16' x 12' and running a Barbershop. The rent in 1997 was fixed at Rs. 900/- (Rupees nine hundred) only, per month, and thereafter, from 2010 onwards at Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees two thousand) only, per month, to be paid by the Defendant within the 10th day of each month, as per letter of the Plaintiff dated 05-07-2013, Exhibit 6. That, from the month of November 2012 the Defendant failed to pay the monthly rent, without assigning any reason, till the filing of the Suit, in December 2013. Around the month of March/April 2013, the Plaintiff received a Money Order from the Defendant, which she refused, being unaware of its purpose. That, even if, the Money Order was for rent, she had every right to refuse it, as the Defendant had failed to pay rent for the previous four months and was, therefore, in arrears of rent. In March 2013, she directed the Defendant to vacate the suit property on account of default of payment of rent, in vain. Besides, she has an unemployed son, a Graduate, who seeks to run a Computer Training Centre, but has not been able to acquire suitable accommodation. Hence, the prayers, inter alia, for directing the Defendant to hand over vacant possession of the suit property to the Plaintiff, as he was a wilful defaulter in payment of rent and she bona fide required the suit premises for her son.

(3.) Resisting the contentions of the Plaintiff, the Defendant denied default in rent payment or the requirement of the Plaintiff's son. That, the Plaintiff infact refused to accept the monthly rent from November 2012 including the rents despatched by Money Orders. The said refusal, according to him, was a ruse to evict him, as in the month of September 2012 she had informed him of the sale of the suit building to one Arun Ghatani. Moreover, the location of the said premises was not suitable for running a Computer Training Centre, besides which other tenants were in occupation of larger areas in the same building and the Plaintiff has several other RCC buildings located in various parts of Sikkim, where her son can be accommodated, hence, the Suit be dismissed.