Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 817 (GAU)

Mahendra Rai and Ors. v. Silvina Kharkongor

2012-07-13

S.R.SEN

body2012
1. The petitioners approached this court by way of Revision under section 115 CPC read with rule 27 of the Khasi Syiemship (Administration of Justice) Order 1950, against the impugned judgment and order dated 3.2.2011 in Title Civil Appeal No. 1(T)2010 by the learned Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Smt. C. Kharkongor, and judgment dated 12.3.2010 and decree dated 16.3.2010 passed in Title Suit No.16(T) 2008 by the Court of Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong. 2. The Brief fact of the case is that, the respondent being a land owner instituted an Ejectment Suit against the petitioners before the court of Assistant to Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, registered as Title Suit No.3 (H)2008 on the alleged grounds of default in payment of rent, bona fide requirement and nuisance, praying for a decree of eviction and arrears of rent, etc. 3. The learned trial court passed the judgment dated 12.3.2010 and decree dated 16.3.2010 in the said Ejectment Suit [Title Suit No. 16(T)2010] in favour of the respondent mechanically and without discussing the evidence available on record. 4. Petitioners on being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the trial court preferred an appeal before the Addl. Deputy Commissioner, Shillong, as Title Civil Appeal No.1(T)2010, which was dismissed by the appellate court vide order dated 3.2.2011 and upheld the judgment of the trial court. 5. Being aggrieved by the judgment, decree and order in appeal, petitioners approached this court by way of this instant Revision Petition. 6. Learned counsel Mr. M.F. Qureshi, appearing for and on behalf of the petitioners argued that the suit premises is situated at a place called Lapalang at Shillong, which does not fall within the purview of Urban Area Act and further submitted that as per the definition in section 1 of the Meghalaya Urban Area Control Act, it is not denned specifically which are the Urban areas and secondly the Meghalaya Rent Control Act, applies only to Urban areas of Shillong and no other parts of Shillong, as such, when respondent refused to accept the rent petitioners did not get any forurn or place to deposit the rent and for that reason, petitioners cannot be held defaulters in payment of rent. He also argued that respondent failed to establish bona fide requirement as well as nuisance against the petitioners, but both the learned court below failed to understand the facts and circumstances of the case both factually and legally and wrongly passed the judgment of eviction. Hence, the said judgment needs to be set aside. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied on Binod Ch Das v. Upen Medhi, 2004 (1)GLT 208. 7. On the other hand, Mr. S. Chakrabarty, appearing for and on behalf of the respondent submitted that as a revisional court, this court has very limited scope to intervene with the impugned judgment and order as because both the court below has given a concurrent finding. Moreover, it is an admitted fact from the evidence on record of the lower court that petitioners failed to pay the rent from the year 2004 and there is nothing on record to show that they had offered the rent and respondent had refused; nor there is any attempt on the part of the petitioners to make any endeavour to deposit rent in the court, so petitioners cannot say that they are not defaulters and trial court has passed the order wrongly which was upheld subsequently by the appellate court and prayed that the instant revision petition may be dismissed. 8. I have perused the lower court case record specially the deposition of the petitioners and on perusal of the deposition of the petitioners before the lower court as DW1 to DW 28, it is amply clear that petitioners were the tenants under the respondent and were paying rent annually; but they did not pay the rent w.e.f. 2004. They have also explained that they could not pay the rent as because the land owner refused to accept the rent. It is also amply clear from their deposition that they did not make any effort to pay or deposit the rent in any Court. 9. On analysis of the evidence of the petitioners before the learned Court below, it is clear that, they are defaulters on payment of rent and it is an admitted fact and there cannot be any dual opinion. Now the question remains as asked by the petitioners' counsel Mr. 9. On analysis of the evidence of the petitioners before the learned Court below, it is clear that, they are defaulters on payment of rent and it is an admitted fact and there cannot be any dual opinion. Now the question remains as asked by the petitioners' counsel Mr. M.F. Qureshi, that petitioners could not deposit the rent in the court of law as Lapalang does not fall within the urban area, docs not have much force in it because any one can approach the court to deposit the rent and the court is bound to accept the rent without considering whether it is within its jurisdiction or not that is to be decided at the time of trial. Function of rent deposit court is rather administrative than judicial. Therefore, I do not find any logic that petitioners could not deposit the rent as the suit premises does not fall within the urban area. Hence, if the petitioners deposited the rent in any court of law situation might have been different and would help them to prove their sincerity to pay the rent due to the land owner. But since no endeavour has been made to deposit the rent in the court, I am unable to accept the argument advanced by learned counsel Mr. M.F. Qureshi, for and on behalf of the petitioners. 10. I have also examined the lower court case record on other angle and could not find any serious error where intervention of this court is warranted. Therefore I am of the conclusive view that since petitioners are defaulters and as has been admitted and proof beyond doubt, the learned trial court as well as appellate court has rightly passed the order of eviction and upheld the order of eviction. Therefore, I do not find sufficient reason for my interference with the judgment of the trial court as well as the appellate court referred above. 11. Before, I part with the case record I observed that Meghalaya Urban Area Rent Control Act, 1972, needs to be clarified by the Government. Therefore, I do not find sufficient reason for my interference with the judgment of the trial court as well as the appellate court referred above. 11. Before, I part with the case record I observed that Meghalaya Urban Area Rent Control Act, 1972, needs to be clarified by the Government. Sub-section 2(a) of section 1 speaks as "it extends to all urban areas in Meghalaya" and sub-section 2(b) of the Act speaks as "the State Government may, by Notification, extend the Act to such area or areas as are included .to Town Committee constituted by the District Council and also the other areas of the Khasi Hills as fall within a radius of eight kilometers from the Court House of the Deputy Commissioner, Khasi Hills District." On combine reading of 2(a) and (b) it is not clear which are the urban areas or has the Government of Meghalaya passed, issued any Notification in that respect indicating areas that falls within the purview of the urban area. I think the Government should clarify this situation by issuing the order or Notification whatever the case may be, otherwise it created lots of confusion in the mind of common people. I also observed that even Secretary Law, Government of Meghalaya and Deputy Commissioner, East Khasi Hills, also could not throw any light on the matter. Therefore, Government should take immediate step and to issue an order or a Notification specifying the areas within one month from today. With these observations and directions, the instant revision petition is dismissed and disposed of. No order as to costs. 12. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, Government of Meghalaya, as well as to the Secretary Law to the Government of Meghalaya for their information and necessary action immediately.