CRP No. 67 of 2012. Case: Bijit Roy Vs Khokan Debnath. Guwahati High Court

Case NumberCRP No. 67 of 2012
CounselFor Appellant: Mr. D.R. Choudhury, Adv. and For Respondents: Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Sr. Advocate & Ms. P. Sen, Adv.
JudgesUtpalendu Bikas Saha, J.
IssueConstitution of India - Article 227; Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 - Sections 14(1)(e), 25B; Enemy Property Act 1968 - Section 18; Karnataka Rent Control Act, 2001 - Section 21(1)(h); Madhya Pradesh Accommodation Control Act 1961 - Section 12(1)(f)
Judgement DateSeptember 03, 2012
CourtGuwahati High Court

Judgment:

Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J.

1. The instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, admittedly a tenant under the respondent, challenging the order dated 11.4.2012 passed by the learned Rent Control Revisional Authority, (the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala), in case No. RCC (revision) No. 04 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, the revision application filed by the petitioner, against the judgment and order, dated 7.7.2010, passed by the appellate Court of the Rent Control Cases (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala), in RCC (Appeal) No. 6 of 2008 affirming the judgment and order dated 3.9.2008 passed by the Rent Control Court, Agartala, West Tripura in RCC case No. 14 of 2006 directing the petitioner to put the respondent land lord in vacant possession of the premises in question, was rejected. Heard Mr. D.R. Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner tenant as well as Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P. Sen, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-land lord.

2. As agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, the instant revision petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

3. The facts needed to be discussed, in a nut shell, are as follows:

The respondent-landlord instituted a proceeding bearing No. RCC 14 of 2006 in the Rent Control Court, Agartala, West Tripura impleading the present petitioner as O.P. Tenant under Section 12(3) of Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1975') with a prayer for eviction of the petitioner tenant from the tenanted premises owned by the landlord respondent on the ground that the respondent-landlord was running transport business, but in the said business, he was facing loss for the last few years. So he was thinking to start a fixed business to save himself and others dependent on him from starvation. Accordingly, he approached his mother and brother-in-law to purchase the tenanted premises from them who were the joint owners of the said premises, on which they also agreed to sell the same to him.

4. On purchase of the said tenanted premises on 4.2.2005 and 4.5.2005 by two sale deeds, he issued notice to the petitioner tenant on 3.8.2005 expressing his bona fide need to start his business therein, as he has no alternative scope to maintain his family. The petitioner tenant who was the O.P. in the aforesaid rent control case replied to the said notice on 2.5.2006 where he did not say anything regarding his intention for vacating the premises in question. Ultimately, the respondent land lord filed the aforesaid rent control case under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1975. The petitioner tenant contested the aforesaid case wherein he denied the bona fide need of the respondent landlord.

5. The learned Rent Control Court examined the two witnesses- the respondent landlord as P.W. 1 and his brother as P.W. 2 as well as the petitioner-tenant as O.P.W. 1.

6. Upon consideration of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses and other relevant records, the learned Rent Control Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent landlord on the ground that the petitioner tenant-O.P. has an option by taking the vacant shop which is on the eastern side of the suit premise on rental basis for which the O.P. could have approached P.W. 2 to run his business if his only means of livelihood is the said grocery shop, but the O.P. has not exercised that option, nor has he given any reason as to why he had not opted for the option available to him.

7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Rent Control Court, the petitioner tenant O.P. preferred an appeal under Section 20 of the Said Act, 1975 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, (senior division), Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala, i.e., the Appellate Authority of the Rent Control Cases. Later on, the said case was transferred to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala for disposal of the said appeal in accordance with law.

8. The learned Appellate authority dismissed the RCC (appeal) case No. 06 of 2008 vide his judgment dated 7.7.2010 affirming the judgment and order dated 3.9.2008 passed by the Rent Control Court in RCC 14 of 2006. In the appellate judgment, the appellate authority also directed the petitioner tenant opposite party to vacate the possession of the suit premises and hand over the same to the respondent landlord in good condition within three months from the date of passing of the order and judgment, failing which, the respondent landlord was given liberty to execute the same as per provision of law.

9. Not being happy and aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment and order dated 7.7.2010, the petitioner tenant has preferred a Revision petition under Section 22 of the Act, 1975 before the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, i.e., learned Rent Control Revisional Authority. The said Revision petition was registered as RCC (Revision) 4 of 2010. The learned Revisional Authority vide its judgment dated 11.4.2012 dismissed the Revision petition and affirmed the order of the Appellate Authority as well as of the learned Rent Control Court. Hence the instant Revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.

10. Mr. Choudhury, learned Counsel, while urging for setting aside the order of the Revisional Authority, i.e., the District Judge and the order of the appellate authority as well as the order of the Rent Control Court, would contend that the Courts below, i.e., from the Rent Control Court to Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority, committed error while considering the first and second proviso to Sub-section (3) of Section 12 of the Act, 1975 wherein the Legislature in its wisdom cast a duty on the Rent Control Court not to give any direction if the landlord has another building of his own in his possession in the same town or village except where the Rent Control Court is satisfied that for special reason in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so and also was not give any direction to the tenant to put the landlord in possession, if such tenant is depending for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried on in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry on such trade or business.

11. He further submits that the Rent Control Court also failed to consider the evidence on record which has been given seal subsequently by the Revisional Authority. He also submits that bona fide requirement of the landlord is required to be considered in consonance with the statutory provisions, i.e., when the landlord has some other building or premises for his livelihood, then the tenant should not be asked to put the landlord in the premises.

12. In the instant case, the Courts below did not consider the said aspect and in support of his aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Deena Nath Vs. Pooran Lal, (2001) 5 SCC 705, particularly, he referred to paragraph-17 of the said Report, which is reproduced hereunder:

17. Coming to the case on hand, the judgment of the High Court clearly bears out the position that the lower Courts had failed to consider the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT