SHIVA KUMAR NEPAL Vs. SHANKAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dissatisfied with the Judgment of the learned District Judge, South Sikkim, at Namchi, in Eviction Suit No.02 of 2014, decreeing the Suit of the Respondent/Plaintiff (hereinafter, Respondent) and dismissing the Counter-Claim of the Appellant/Defendant (hereinafter, Appellant), the Appellant seeks redressal before this Court.

(2.) A brief factual narrative is essential for clarity in the matter. The Respondent's case is that he was a tenant in the ground and first floor of a building initially owned by one Purnima Shreshta, at a monthly rent of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees three thousand and five hundred) only, used for his residence and business respectively. The property was purchased by the Appellant in the year 2011. From January, 2012 he demanded an enhanced monthly rent of Rs.8,000/- (Rupees eight thousand) only, which the Respondent refused to pay, while the Appellant declined to accept the original rent of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees three thousand and five hundred) only, the intention allegedly being to declare the Respondent a defaulter and thereby evict him. Consequently the Respondent was compelled to send the rent by Money Order from January, 2012. The Appellant also employed some musclemen to intimidate the Respondent in order to expedite his eviction from the suit premises. On 12-01-2014, the Appellant coerced him in the presence of witnesses into affixing his signature on Exhibit "A," an Undertaking to vacate the suit premises. Pursuant thereto the Respondent issued a Legal Notice, Exhibit 2A, to the Appellant denying execution of such Agreement. The Respondent then approached the learned Trial Court under Notification No.6326-600-H&W-B of the Health and Works Department, Government of Sikkim, dated 14-04-1949 (for short "Notification of 1949"), seeking a declaration that he is entitled to enjoy his rented premises free from undue harassment and interference from the Appellant, his agents or servants till such time that he is evicted by due course of law. He also sought prohibitory injunction on the same grounds, till final disposal of the Suit.

(3.) Denying and disputing the allegations, the Appellant in his Written Statement-cum-Counter Claim averred that he required the suit premises bona fide, for the purposes of opening a beauty parlour for his wife, a trained beautician and a fast food eatery for his unemployed brothers. The building also required overhauling for proper residential and commercial use, the premises having been damaged by the Respondent, though subsequently this ground was abandoned. Despite the original owner's assurance that the Respondent would vacate the suit premises within two months of registration of the building in the Appellant's name, another five months time was sought from January, 2012. Later, he agreed to vacate within a period of two months, but ceased paying rent from the same month, viz. January, 2012. On enquiry by the Appellant in the month of May, 2012, the Respondent informed him that the rent was being sent by Money Order, while enquiry from the Postal Authorities negatived such remittance, thereby rendering the Respondent a defaulter. The Appellant enumerated the following prayers in his Counter-Claim;