GANGTOK, India, June 5 -- Sikkim High Court issued the following judgment/order on May 5:

1. This judgment shall dispose two regular first appeals i.e RFA No.06 of 2019 and RFA No 12 of 2019.

2. R.F.A. No. 06 of 2019 is an appeal against judgment and decree both dated 12.04.2019 passed by the learned District Judge, Special Division-I, Sikkim at Gangtok in Title Suit (Declaratory) No.1 of 2014 filed by the appellants i.e. M/s Nauratanmal Ashok Kumar and Sampatlal Bucha. The impugned judgment and decree both dated 12.04.2019 dismissed the counter claim filed by the appellants. The counter claim sought 17 prayers all revolving around the two sale deeds dated 03.09.1996 (first sale deed) and 10.02.1998 (second sale deed). The two sale deeds transferred the suit property in which the appellant was a tenant firstly, by Sakuntala Devi the first owner/landlady to Azey Bhutiani and thereafter, to Yangzila Bhutiani by Azey Bhutiani.

3. R.F.A. No. 12 of 2019 is an appeal against Order dated 04.10.2019 in an application filed by Yangzila Bhutiani under Order XII Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) praying for a decree on admission in Eviction Suit No.18 of 2013 filed by Yangzila Bhutiani against Nauratanmal Ashok Kumar. It was held that the appellant had admitted in the written statement that they had not paid the rent and as such was liable to be evicted under the Gangtok Rent Control and Eviction Act, 1956.

4. When the matter was taken up for hearing before this Court Sampatlal Bucha for the appellants submitted that the appellant's reply to I.A. No. 05 of 2022 filed by Yangzila Bhutiani seeking a direction upon the appellants to deposit all arrears of rent should be considered his submissions in both the appeals. A perusal of the reply filed by the appellants reflects that it is a repetition of the indiscriminate and unsubstantiated callous allegations made in the appeal earlier against this Court's Registry and the Sub-Registrar, East District compelling this Court to pass order dated 12.11.2020 in R.F.A. No. 06 of 2019. Although, when pointed out, Sampatlal Bucha, desired to rectify the use of inappropriate words and language in the appeal and did so in the appeal he has repeated it again in this reply. This is contumacious. The averments made therein are scandalous and does not deal with the issues relevant in the present appeals. These averments made in the reply are struck of.

The rest of the document can be viewed at https://hcs.gov.in/hcs/hg_orders/200100000122019_24.pdf

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.