R. DAYAL, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a tenant's appeal against the judgement and decree of eviction passed against him by the learned Additional District Judge, Sikkim, dated 30-4-1992. ( 2 ) SHRI Hemlal Rasaily was the owner of the five storeyed building facing Lal Market road, Gangtok, detailed in the schedule to the plaint and the defendant/appellant Shri Krishna Chandra Goyal was the tenant under him in respect of one shop situated on the ground basement floor of that building on monthly rent of Rs. 215. 00. He filed a suit for eviction of the appellant on 23-7-1986 on two grounds : the first ground being that he needed the premises for reconstruction and the other ground being that he required the premises for his youngest son, Shri Mani Kumar Rasaily, respondent No. 3, who was unemployed so that he could run his business therein. During the pendency of the suit, Shri Hemlal Rasaily died, whereupon the three respondents who are his sons were impleaded as his legal heirs. ( 3 ) DURING trial, the landlord did not press the ground for reconstruction and, therefore, the only ground on which eviction was ultimately claimed was the bona fide need for the use of plaintiff No. 3. The defendant has resisted the decree of eviction principally on two grounds. One is that the suit is not maintainable since the three sisters of the plaintiffs were not impleaded. The case of the plaintiffs is that the sisters did not inherit any share in the property left by their father, whereas, according to the defendant, the sisters also inherited and since they were not impleaded, the suit was bad for non joinder of necessary parties. The other ground on which eviction is resisted is that the plaintiffs did not have any bona fide necessity for the acco-mmodation in question and the suit has been filed only because he did not agree to enhance rent. ( 4 ) THE Trial Court held in the impugned judgement that the three daughters of Shri Hemlal Rasaily did not inherit in the property left by their father, since the Hindu Succes-sion Act, 1956 has not yet been extended to Sikkim. ( 4 ) THE Trial Court held in the impugned judgement that the three daughters of Shri Hemlal Rasaily did not inherit in the property left by their father, since the Hindu Succes-sion Act, 1956 has not yet been extended to Sikkim. The learned Trial Judge further held that the suit premises were required bona fide for the use of plaintiff No. 3 and the fact that the landlord asked for enhancement of rent did not debar him from claiming eviction. ( 5 ) ONLY two points arise for decision in this appeal : one is whether the suit is bad for non joinder of the three married sisters of the plaintiffs as parties to the suit and, secondly, whether the need of the plaintiffs for the premises is bona fide. ( 6 ) AS regards the first point, there is no I dispute that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 has not yet been extended to Sikkim. There is also no dispute that the plaintiffs are the residents of Sikkim. There is absolutely nothing on record to show that the plaintiffs were ever governed by the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Learned counsel for the landlord could also not dispute the legal proposition that under the Hindu Law as it stood before the amendment brought by the Hindu Suc-cession Act, the daughters did not inherit in the property of their father. I, therefore, affirm the finding of the learned Additional District Judge that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. ( 7 ) AS regards the other point, there is no dispute that the defendant became the tenant in respect of the shop in question in 1971 on monthly rent of Rs. 201. 00. Subsequently, the rate of rent was enhanced to Rs. 215. 00 in the year 1973 or 1974. On 17-12-1979, Shri Hemlal Rasaily sent a notice (Exhibit D-6) through his counsel requiring the defendant to vacate the premises claiming that he required the premises for his own bona fide use and occupation and for the use and occupation of his dependents. Shri Padam Kumar Rasaily, plaintiff No. 2 has admitted in his cross-examination that in the year 1986, rent of two other tenants in the same building was enhanced from Rs. 225. 00 to Rs. 500. Shri Padam Kumar Rasaily, plaintiff No. 2 has admitted in his cross-examination that in the year 1986, rent of two other tenants in the same building was enhanced from Rs. 225. 00 to Rs. 500. 00 -each and that the defendant was also asked to enhance rent but he did not agree and then he started depositing rent in the Court. He also admitted in his cross-examination that con-struction of one other building as Namnam was completed one or two years after 1981. There is no dispute that there are two shops in the Namnam building on the ground floor and both were let out to tenants. One of these tenants was Gagendra Singh Tyagi who vacated the shop occupied by him on 31/01/1991. Shri Gagendra Singh has admitted in his affidavit affirmed by him on 24-7-1992 that he vacated the premises because the landlord had represented to him that the premises were required for plaintiff No. 3 to start his liquor business. This fact was not disputed by respondent No. 3 in this Court on 28-9-1992. ( 8 ) PLAINTIFF No. 1 is the eldest brother. Admittedly, he is in government employment. Plaintiff No. 2 is running his own business in a shop in the same building of which the shop in question is a part. All the three brothers have entered the witness box to depose that the premises were required for starting business by plaintiff No. 3 as no other accommodation was available with them for that purpose. On the other hand, the defendant has deposed that the need of the plaintiffs is not bona fide and the suit has been brought only to put pressure to enhance rent. The defendant has also deposed that plaintiff No. 1 once came to him after filing the suit, on 2-5-90 for enhancement of rent to Rs. 1200. 00 per month. He has produced one witness, Shri Ramesh-war Das Agrawala (DW 2) to corroborate him on this point. Even if this evidence about the demand for enhancement of rent in May 1990 is excluded from consideration, there is an admission by plaintiff No. 2 that shortly before the institution of the suit, the defen-dant was asked to enhance rent but he did not agree to do so. Even if this evidence about the demand for enhancement of rent in May 1990 is excluded from consideration, there is an admission by plaintiff No. 2 that shortly before the institution of the suit, the defen-dant was asked to enhance rent but he did not agree to do so. The learned Trial Court, relying on A. Gopalakrishna Chettiar v. T. K. A. Yukub Hussain, AIR 1984 Mad 253, held that a demand for enhanced rent does not debar the landlord from claiming eject-ment subsequently on the ground of bona fide requirement. It was held in the Madras case that the fact that at a certain earlier stage there was a demand for higher rent will not debar the landlord from claiming eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement of the premises for his own use for ever. It appears that the learned Trial Court fell in error in appreciating the judgement of the Madras High Court. It is one thing to say that the landlord is not debarred from claiming eviction for ever once a demand for enhance rent was made but quite another to say the demand for enhancement shortly before the institution of the suit is a material fact to show that the need was not bona fide. If the landlord needs the premises for his use or for the use of any of his dependents, it is no expected that he would claim enhancement of rent shortly before the institution of the suit. If a landlord demands enhancement of rent shortly before the institution of the suit, it is a strong factor to suggest that he did not required the premises because to claim enhancement of rent goes to indicate that he did not need the premises. Furthermore, the fact that the building at Namnam was constructed after the year 1979 when notice demanding posses-sion had been sent and both the shops in that building were let out indicates that the claim for bona fide need made in the year 1979 was not genuine. The fact that the plaintiffs got possession of the shop formerly occupied by Gagendra Singh Tyagi on 31/01/1991 on the ground that the shop was required for plaintiff No. 3, shows that whatever need might have been there, has been fulfilled and as such the plaintiffs have now no case for the accommodation in question. The fact that the plaintiffs got possession of the shop formerly occupied by Gagendra Singh Tyagi on 31/01/1991 on the ground that the shop was required for plaintiff No. 3, shows that whatever need might have been there, has been fulfilled and as such the plaintiffs have now no case for the accommodation in question. Therefore, reversing the finding of the learned Trial Court on this point, I hold that the need of the plaintiffs in respect of the shop in question is not genuine. ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal is allowed and the suit is dismissed. In the circumstances, parties are left to bear their own costs in both the courts. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .