Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 111 (GAU)

Manoranjan Dey v. Mukunda Deb Barma

2004-02-17

I.A.ANSARI

body2004
JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. In this writ petition, the challenge is paused to the order, dated 25.09.2002, passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura. Agartala, as revisional Authority under the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, in RCC (Revision) No. 3/2001, dismissing the revision and thereby upholding the order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala, passed as appellate authority, in RCC Rent Control Case (Appeal) No. 10/95, setting aside the order, dated 28.08.95. passed, in Rent Control Case No. 27/90, by the learned Rent Control Court, Agartala, and directing the tenant-revision Petitioners of hand over the vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the land lord opposite party within 30 days from the date of the order. 2. The facts, which are material for disposal of the writ petition, may, in a nut-shell, be set out as follows : (i) The Respondent No. 1 herein, as Plaintiff, had filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act" in the Rent Control Court, Agartala, for eviction of the Defendants (who are now, Petitioners) and the proforma Respondents herein from the tenanted premises on the ground of defauler in respect of payment of rent. The said application was registered as Misc. case No. 27(RCC)/1990. The learned Rent Control Court rejected the said Misc. application, on contest, by its order, dated 28.8.1995. Thereafter, the Respondent No. 1 as landlord, preferred an appeal, being RCC Appeal No. 10/1995, in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Court No. 1, West Tripura Agartala, as the appellate Authority of Rent Control Cases. The said appeal was allowed by judgment and order, dated 15.1.1997, thereby setting aside the order, dated 28.8.1995, aforementioned passed by the learned Rent Control Court and holding that the Defendants Petitioners and proforma Respondents would hand over the vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the Plaintiff Respondent No. 1 within 45 days; otherwise, the Respondent No. 1 Plaintiff would be entitled to get recovery of possession of the tenanted premises, etc. The learned appellate Authority further held that the Defendants and the proforma Respondents would be at liberty to pay arrear of rents, as claimed by the Respondent No. 1 Plaintiff in the original eviction petition within 45 days and if the Defendants and the proforma Respondents pay the entire arrear of rents, the order of the appellate Authority would not affect their interest and in that event, the said order, dated 15.1.1997, would become infructuous. The Defendants and the proforma-Respondents, thereafter, filed civil Revision (RCC) No. 04/1997 in the Court of learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, as the revisional Authority of the Rent Control cases, challenging the judgment and order, dated 15.1.1997, aforementioned, passed by the learned appellate Authority in RCC Appeal No. 10/1997. The said Civil Revision (RCC) No. 04/1997 was admitted and heard on merit and by judgment and order, dated 16.12.1998, passed therein, the learned District Judge set aside the judgment and order, dated 15.1.1997, aforementioned passed in RCC Appeal No. 10/1997 and remanded the matter to the learned appellate Authority i.e., Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala, for passing judgment within two months after hearing the arguments of both sides. The appellate Authority, then, heard the matter as directed by the learned District Judge and by his order, dated 16.12.1998, passed in Civil Revision (RCC) No. 04/1997, allowed the appeal by judgment and order, dated 4.5.2001, passed in RCC Appeal No. 10/1995 aforementioned with direction to the Defendants Petitioners and the proforma Respondents herein to hand over vacant possession of the tenanted premises within 30 days failing which the Respondent No. 1 Plaintiff would be entitled to get possession of the premises through due process of law. (ii) The Petitioners and the proforma-Respondents, as stated hereinabove, filed Title Suit No. 86/1991 for specific performance of contract for getting a valid sale deed duly executed and registered by the Respondent No. 1 in resect of the tenanted premises of Misc. Case No. 27 (RCC) 1990 on the basis of an agreement, dated 14.12.1979, between the Respondent No. 1 and the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners and the proforma-Respondents. The said suit was contested by the Respondent No. 1 and after trial, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dim), Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala passed the judgment and order, dated 4.12.1995, in title Suit No. 86/1991 aforementioned dismissing the suit. The said suit was contested by the Respondent No. 1 and after trial, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dim), Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala passed the judgment and order, dated 4.12.1995, in title Suit No. 86/1991 aforementioned dismissing the suit. Against the said judgment and the decree, which followed, the present Petitioners and the proforma-Respondents filed Title Appeal No. 14/1996 before the learned District Judge, West Tripura, and the said appeal was also dismissed by judgment and order dated 17.1.1997, whereafter the Petitioners and the proforma Respondents preferred Second Appeal No. 16/1997 before this Court, which is pending for hearing. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order, dated 25.9.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, as Revisional Authority of Rent Control Cases, in RCC (Rev) No. 3/2001, and the judgment and order, dated 4.5.2001, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1. West Tripura, Agartala, as Appellate Authority of Rent Control Cases, in RCC (Appeal) No. 10/1995, arising out of the final order, dated 28.8.1995, passed by the Rent Control Court, Agartala (the then Sadar Munsiff, Agartala) in Case No. 27(RCC)/1990, the present Petitioners have, now, come before this Court with the help of this application made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. I have perused the materials on record. I have heard Mr. R.K. Dhar, learned Counsel for the Petitioners, and Mr. S. Deb, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents. 5. While issuing rule on 11.02.2003, this Court granted an interim stay of the impugned order subject to deposit of arrear of rents by the Petitioner with 6% interest per annum passed by the learned Rent Control Court within a period of 30 days. Acting upon this direction, the Petitioners have deposited the area rents. 6. At the time of hearing, it has been submitted, on behalf of the Petitioners, that since the Petitioners have, now, deposited the arrear of rents in terms of the directions of this Court passed in this writ petition, and, hence, the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order, dated 04.05.2001, aforementioned passed by the learned appellate Authority as well as the order, dated 25.09.2002, aforementioned passed by the Revisional Authority be set aside. 7. 7. While dealing with the above submissions made on behalf of the Petitioners, it is apposite to reproduce Sub-section (2) of Section 12, which reads as follows : (2) (a) A landlord who seeks to evict his tenant shall apply to the Rent Control Court for a direction in that behalf. (b) If the Rent Control Court, after giving the tenant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the application, is satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered the rent due by him in respect of the building within fifteen days after the expiry of the time fixed in the agreement of tenancy with his landlord or in the absence of any such agreement by the last day of the month next following that for which the rent is payable and such default has continued for three months within a period of twelve months, if shall made an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building, and if it is not satisfied it shall make an order rejecting the application thereof by him: Provided that an application under this Sub-section shall be made only if the landlord has sent a registered notice to the tenant intimating the default and the tenant has failed to pay or tender the rent together with interest at six percent per annum and postal charges incurred in sending the notice within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or of the refusal thereof. (c) The order of the Rent Control court directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building shall not be executed before the expiry of one month from the date of such order or such further period as the Rent Control Court may in its discretion allow; and if the tenant deposits the arrears of rent with interest and cost of proceedings within the said period of one month or such further period, as may be, it shall vacate that order. 8. A careful reading of the above provisions of Section 12(2) shows that if the Rent Control Court is satisfied that the tenant has not paid or tendered rent due by him in respect of the tenanted premises and the default has continued for three months within a period of 12 months, it shall make an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building. However, the direction, so given to put the landlord in possession of the building, shall not be executed before the expiry of one month from the date of making of the order or till such further period as the Rent Control Court may, in its discretion, allow and if the tenant deposits the arrear of rents with interest and costs of the proceedings within the period of one month or within such further period, as the Rent control Court may allow, the Rent Control Court shall vacate the order given by it to put the landlord in possession of the building. This, in turn, shows that the order to put the landlord in possession of the building cannot be executed for a period of one month from the date of passing of the order or till such further period as the Rent Control Court may allow the tenant for the purpose of deposing the arrear of rents. If the Court does not allow further time i.e., beyond a period of one month from the date of the order, the tenant has no option but to make payment of the rent within the period of one month from the date, when the tenant is directed to put the landlord into possession of the tenanted premises. 9. What logically follows from the above discussion is that irrespective of the fact as to whether the Rent Control Court directs the tenant to deposit the arrear of rent within one month or not, the tenant has the freedom and liberty to deposit the rent within one month if he wishes to defeat the order directing him to put the landlord in possession of the tenanted premises. If no order has been passed by the Rent Control Court giving the direction or liberty to the tenant to deposit the rent, it will imply that the tenant is statutorily required to deposit the rent within one month if he is interested in resisting the decree and if he wants further time for depositing the due rent, he may apply to the Court for necessary extension of time to enable him to deposit the due rent. 10. 10. Since Clause-(c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 12 gives a statutory right to the tenant to deposit the rent due, within a period of one month, no formal order is necessary from the Rent Control Court or the appellate or revisional Authority functioning under said Act directing the tenant that he may deposit the rent within one month. It is only when the Court decides to give more than one month time for depositing the rent due and payable by the tenant that the court is required to pass an order, in its discretion, allowing the tenant to deposit the rent within such period as may be fixed by the Court. Merely on the ground that no order has been passed directing the tenant to deposit the rent, the order directing him to put the landlord into possession of the suit premises cannot become illegal and/or void inasmuch as the silence of the Court indicates that if the tenant is interested in getting the direction to put the landlord in possession of the tenanted premises vacated, he shall deposit the due rent in terms of the requirements of Section 12(2)(b) read with Section 12(2)(c). 11. In the case at hand, the order to put the tenant in possession of the building was passed by the learned Appellate Authority on 04.05.2001. Hence, the tenants Petitioner had the freedom and liberty to deposit the arrear of rents, in terms of the provisions of Clause (c) of Sub-section (2) of Section 12, within a period of one month from the date of the appellate Court's order i.e., within 03.06.2001. The appellate order cannot be said to be bad, illegal or void on the ground that no such freedom or liberty was given to the tenant. Since the tenant had the statutory right to deposit the arrear of the rents in terms of the law and defeat thereby the order of his eviction, the tenant did not require a specific direction from the Court to deposit the rent within 03.06.2001. 12. In the present case, the tenants, Petitioners, admittedly, filed the revision, on 12.06.2001, it means that for a period of more than one month of the passing of the order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the tenanted premises, no arrear rents had been deposited by the Petitioners. 12. In the present case, the tenants, Petitioners, admittedly, filed the revision, on 12.06.2001, it means that for a period of more than one month of the passing of the order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the tenanted premises, no arrear rents had been deposited by the Petitioners. Hence, the tenants were liable to put the land lord in possession of the building. The mere fact that in the present writ petition, the tenant has been directed to deposit the rent due, such a deposit of rents cannot take away the right of the landlord to seek eviction of the tenant from the tenanted premises, for the tenant-Petitioners had not exercised their statutory right of depositing, in terms of Clause (C) of Sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the said act, the arrears of rent within a period of the order, dated 04.05.2001 aforementioned, whereby the tenants Petitioners were directed by the learned appellate Authority to put the landlord Respondent No. 1 in possession of the tenanted premises. The arrear of rents was a monetary due and even if the same has been paid; this does not absolve the tenant from eviction from the tenanted premises inasmuch as in the present case, as already indicated hereinbefore, the tenant-Petitioners had failed to deposit the arrear of rents within the statutory period of one month from the date of the order, dated 04.05.2001. 13. Coupled with the above, no legal or factual infirmity could be pointed out, at the time of hearing of this writ petition, by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners to show, nor do I notice anything in the impugned orders indicating, that the finding of the learned appellate authority that the Petitioners were defaulters was perverse and/or that the learned revisional Authority ought to have interferred with the finding so reached by the learned Appellate authority. 14. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety, I find no merit in this writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs of Rs. 500/- 15. Send back the LCR. Petition dismissed.