Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Sikkim, Gangtok,  Single Bench of Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, adjudicated upon two Regular First Appeals concerning a longstanding tenancy dispute. The Court upheld the eviction of the tenant for defaulting on rent and rejected allegations of forgery and collusion concerning the sale deeds of the suit premises. The judgment dated 05 May 2025 affirms the District Judge's findings in both the counter-claim filed by the tenant and the landlord's application for eviction under the Gangtok Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1956.

The Court directed the tenant to vacate the premises within three months and to pay the outstanding rent arrears from December 2001 until the date of vacation.

Also Read: Stamp Vendors are Public Servants under PC Act | Proof of Demand is Sine Qua Non for Conviction | Mere Recovery of Tainted Money Not Enough : Supreme Court

The litigation concerned a property located at M.G. Marg, Gangtok, East Sikkim, where M/s Nauratanmal Ashok Kumar, a Hindu Undivided Family represented by its Karta, Shri Sampatlal Bucha, had been a tenant. The suit premises originally belonged to Sakuntala Devi, who executed a registered sale deed on 03.09.1996 transferring the property to Azey Bhutiani. Subsequently, Azey Bhutiani sold the property to Yangzila Bhutiani via another registered deed dated 10.02.1998.

The appellants contested these transfers, alleging forgery, fraud, and collusion, and filed a counter-claim seeking seventeen reliefs including the invalidation of the sale deeds. Simultaneously, an eviction suit was filed by Yangzila Bhutiani citing non-payment of rent since December 2001. The learned District Judge dismissed the tenant's counter-claim and granted eviction based on admission in pleadings.

In R.F.A. No. 06 of 2019, the appellants challenged the dismissal of their counter-claim in Title Suit (Declaratory) No. 01 of 2014. The core issues framed were:

1. Whether Yangzila Bhutiani’s claim is based on collusive, void, and fraudulent documents?

2. Whether the documents, if fraudulent, are liable to be impounded?

3. What relief are the appellants entitled to?

The appellants produced seventeen witnesses, including government officials and private parties, to support their allegations. However, their testimonies did not substantiate claims of forgery or fraud.

During cross-examination, appellant No.2 admitted:

• That Sakuntala Devi was the owner and he was her tenant.

• That they had filed a writ petition against the initial sale deed which was dismissed.

• That he had never lodged a police complaint or FIR against the registry or officials involved.

Multiple witnesses, including Registration Clerks, Surveyors, Sub-Registrars, and legal counsel involved in the transactions, confirmed the validity and procedural integrity of the sale deeds.

The Court noted: "These witnesses produced by the appellants did not support or prove the allegation of forgery, collusion, tampering and fraud alleged by the appellants. In fact the appellants’ witnesses confirmed that the two sale deeds were validly transacted and registered."

In R.F.A. No. 12 of 2019, the appellant challenged the eviction order dated 04.10.2019 passed under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of CPC in Eviction Suit No. 18 of 2013. The eviction was based on admissions in the written statement where the tenant explicitly denied paying rent to Yangzila Bhutiani, claiming she was not the lawful owner.

The Court recorded: "It is accordingly upheld. It is therefore ordered that the appellant shall vacate and handover the suit property within a period of three months. It is further ordered that the appellant shall pay the rents payable from December, 2001 till the vacation of the suit property to Yangzila Bhutiani within the said periods of three months."

The High Court reproduced the District Judge's findings, noting the counter-claim had originated from an earlier eviction suit (Eviction Suit No. 1 of 2010) withdrawn in 2012, and had since continued as a separate proceeding.

It was observed that the tenant’s evidence primarily consisted of "argumentative" and "unsubstantiated callous allegations." The Court remarked: "He did not provide any details as to who had committed the forgery and in what manner."

The earlier writ petition challenging the first sale deed was dismissed with cost. The High Court in its previous judgment had noted: "A tenant has no locus to challenge the validity of a sale deed which his landlords execute in favour of another person. On the execution of the sale deed only the landlord changes and not the rights and obligations under the lease."

The Court reiterated that the appellants failed to make a case even on a preponderance of probabilities: "The counter claim therefore must fail on this ground alone as the appellants have failed to establish their case even by preponderance of probabilities."

Regarding the second appeal concerning eviction, the Court stated: "The appellant had in fact admitted in the written statement that they had not paid the rent and as such they were liable to be evicted under the Gangtok Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1956."

Also Read: Limitation Law Applies With Full Rigour | Mistake of Counsel No Automatic Ground for Delay Condonation | Andhra Pradesh High Court Refuses to Interfere with National Commission Order

The court stated  “the impugned Order dated 04.10.2019 cannot be faulted. It is accordingly upheld. It is therefore ordered that the appellant shall vacate and handover the suit property within a period of three months. It is further ordered that the appellant shall pay the rents payable from December, 2001 till the vacation of the suit property to Yangzila Bhutiani within the said periods of three months”

Consequently, both appeals i.e. Regular First Appeal No. 06 of 2019 and Regular First Appeal No. 12 of 2019 are dismissed and its respective interim applications disposed.

Costs for both appeals were imposed on the appellants.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For The Respondents: Mr. Sudipto Mazumdar, Senior Advocate with Ms. Mingma Lhamu Sherpa, Advocate, Mr. S.K. Chettri, Government Advocate

Case Title: M/s Nauratanmal Ashok Kumar & Anr. vs. Yangzila Bhutiani & Anr.

Case Numbers: R.F.A. No. 06 of 2019 with R.F.A. No. 12 of 2019

Bench: Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan

[Read/Download order]