Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 501 (GAU)

Sangita Paul v. Sambhunath Banik

2011-06-08

A.C.UPADHYAY

body2011
JUDGMENT A.C. Upadhyay, J. 1. I have heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent. 2. This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the dismissal order dated 21.02.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala as Rent Control Revisional Authority in RCC(Revision) Case No. 05 of 2009, whereby the revision application, filed against the appellate order dated 03.11.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (senior Division) No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala as Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCC Appeal No. 02 of 2008 affirming the original order dated 13.03.2008 passed by the learned Rent Control Court, Agartala, West Tripura in RCC Case No. 16 of 2005 directing the tenant-Petitioners to put the landlord-Respondent in possession of the demised premises. 3. The facts, leading to the filing of this petition, may be stated, in a nutshell, as follows: The landlord-Respondent instituted a proceeding bearing RCC Case No. 16 of 2005 in the Court of Rent Control, P/3 Agartala, West Tripura, as Petitioner(landlord-Respondent herein) impleading the present Petitioners as Defendants as per provision of Section 12(2)(b) and 12(3) of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975, for a direction to put the landlord Respondent in possession of the demised premises described in the Schedule of the original application, on the ground of nonpayment of rent as well as bone fide requirement. The landlord Respondent stated that he used to run a small 'pan' shop including that of some other articles in front of the State Bank of India, Melarmath, Agartala and thus with the meager income from that shop he used to maintain his family consisting of four members. Since the land, in which the 'pan' shop was situated, belonged to Agartala Municipal Council, the landlord-Respondent was asked to vacate the 'pan' shop for construction of drain, for which he was urgently in need of rented premises for starting his own business. Subsequently, the landlord-Respondent was evicted from the said pan shop; thereby he lost his only source of income. The case of the tenant-Petitioners before the Rent Control Court was that they were running a business of grocery goods in the rented premises and it was the only source of their livelihood. Subsequently, the landlord-Respondent was evicted from the said pan shop; thereby he lost his only source of income. The case of the tenant-Petitioners before the Rent Control Court was that they were running a business of grocery goods in the rented premises and it was the only source of their livelihood. Therefore, if they were evicted from the rented premises, they would be deprived of their bread and butter. 4. On the basis of the appreciation of the evidence on record and in view of the law points discussed, the learned Trial P/4 Court ordered that the landlord-Respondent had bona fide requirement of the rented premises and, therefore, the tenant Petitioners were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the rented premises to the landlord-Respondent in good condition within a period of 45 days from the date of order. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by the learned Rent Control Court, Agartala, West Tripura, the present Petitioners preferred RCC Appeal No. 02 of 2008, in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), West Tripura, Agartala. During the pendency of the appeal, an Advocate Commissioner was appointed by the order of the Court. Accordingly, the Advocate Commissioner in due course after local inspection submitted his report on the points referred by the Court and it was found that the 'pan' shop belonging to the landlord-Respondent was removed/demolished by the Agartala Municipal Council, for construction of drain and the landlord Respondent was not given any re-settlement by the Municipal Council. Though the Advocate Commissioner found one pan shop existing in a narrow 'gali' (lane), in the methor (sweeper) passage of the owner of the building, under the stair case in a very small area, which was not suitable for running the business of 'pan' shop. 6. By taking into consideration the Advocate Commissioner's report and after hearing the learned Counsel for P/5 both the parties, the learned Court below disposed of the appeal directing the tenant-Petitioners to hand over the vacant possession of the rented premises to the landlord-Respondent in good condition within a period of 45 days from the date of order. 7. The tenant-Petitioners carried the appeal before the Court of learned Rent Control Revisional Authority, i.e. the Court of District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, challenging the order passed by the Appellate Court. 7. The tenant-Petitioners carried the appeal before the Court of learned Rent Control Revisional Authority, i.e. the Court of District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, challenging the order passed by the Appellate Court. Learned Revisional Authority, i.e. the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, on careful perusal of the matter in its entirety did not interfere with the concurrent finding of the Trial Court as well as Appellate Court, as no perversity or illegality could be pointed out by the tenant Petitioners. 8. Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for the tenant Petitioners assailing the order passed by the Revisional Authority has submitted that in terms of the provision of Section 12(3) of the Rent Control Act, protection is extended to the tenant, 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. Learned Counsel for the tenant-Petitioners has pointed out that no enquiry whatsoever was made by the Trial Court as well as by the Appellate Court and the Revisional Authority to ascertain with certainty the bona fide P/6 requirement of the tenant-Petitioners for their livelihood. Learned Counsel for the tenant-Petitioners has further pointed out that by not framing any issue and thus by not deciding the bona fide requirement of the tenant-Petitioners in respect of the suit premises, the learned Court below failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in law and, therefore, has sought for interference by this Court by setting aside the impugned judgment and order by the revisional court. 9. Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent has submitted that the tenant-Petitioners never ever submitted any application for framing any specific issue regarding the bona fide requirement of the tenant-Petitioners in respect of the suit premises. Learned senior counsel further pointed out that all the Courts below after due scrutiny of the bona fide requirement pleaded and projected by the tenant-Petitioners as well as the landlord-Respondent had consistently held that the landlord-Respondent had required the suit premises bona fide for his own use and occupation. Learned senior counsel further pointed out that all the Courts below after due scrutiny of the bona fide requirement pleaded and projected by the tenant-Petitioners as well as the landlord-Respondent had consistently held that the landlord-Respondent had required the suit premises bona fide for his own use and occupation. Learned senior counsel has further by referring to a decision of this Court in Civil Rule No. 31 of 1998 submitted that when livelihood of both the tenant and the landlord from the leased premises is, in question, the bona fide need of the landlord should prevail. The relevant extract of the decision in Civil Rule No. 31 of 1998 (Sri Jitendra Lal Dey V. Sudhriti Pen Stores and Ors.) reads as follows: 15. The legal position emerging from the above decisions is that though a tenant is entitled to the benefit of statutory protection of rent control legislation noticed above, at the same time, the Court also has a duty to interpret the law so that equal justice is not denied to a landlord in appropriate circumstances. Admittedly, in the case in hand, both the landlord and the tenant have bona fide need for the suit premises. While the Respondent-tenant needs the premises to continue his business which is the only source of his livelihood, at the same time, the landlord is also admittedly in bona fide need of the same for his unemployed son and widow daughter in order to provide them with a source of livelihood. Thus, livelihood of both the landlord and the tenant from the leased premises being an admitted position, the question is whose bona fide need should prevail. As the Petitioner is the owner of the said premises and the source of livelihood of his son and daughter is in question, certainly, the same should prevail over the bona fide need of the tenant. Accordingly, the Rent Control Court as well as the appellate Court have decided the question in favour of the Petitioner land lord. The legal position discussed above makes very clear unless gross illegality or perversity occasion a failure of justice, the concurrent findings of the Courts of facts should not be interfered with by revisional authority for substituting its own findings after reappreciation of the entire evidence. The legal position discussed above makes very clear unless gross illegality or perversity occasion a failure of justice, the concurrent findings of the Courts of facts should not be interfered with by revisional authority for substituting its own findings after reappreciation of the entire evidence. Considered from this angle and from a closer scrutiny of the judgment impugned in the light of the legal and factual position noticed above, it can be safely held that the findings of the revisional authority are not legally sustainable. 10. Though learned Counsel for the tenant-Petitioners has pointed out that no issue whatsoever was framed to decide the bona fide requirement of the tenant-Petitioners, however, in view of the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in Sri Jitendra Lal Dey V. Sudhriti Pen Stores and Ors. (supra), even if there P/8 would have been any finding on the bona fide requirement of the tenant, in such a situation the bona fide requirement of the landlord having been established for his livelihood, the question of bona fide requirement of tenant could not have prevailed. 11. Consequently, considering the matter in its entirety, I do not find any illegality or irregularity in the impugned revisional order passed by the Rent Control Revisional Court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 12. In view of what has been discussed above, this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has no merit and, accordingly, the same is dismissed at the admission stage. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I pass no order as to costs. Petition dismissed