JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India from the judgment and order dated 08.08.2014 delivered in RCC Revision No.01 of 2012 by the Revisional Authority [the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala] which action was set in motion Section 22 of the Tripura Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1975, in short the RCC Act. 3. Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, hereafter referred to as the tenant, has strenuously argued that the findings returned by the Rent Control Court as well as the appellate authority and the revisional authority, are all perverse for non-consideration of the provisions as laid down under Section 12(3) of the RCC Act. 3. Mr. Nath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, hereafter referred to as the tenant, has strenuously argued that the findings returned by the Rent Control Court as well as the appellate authority and the revisional authority, are all perverse for non-consideration of the provisions as laid down under Section 12(3) of the RCC Act. For purpose of reference, the said provision is extracted hereunder: “(3) A landlord may apply to the Rent Control Court for an order directing the tenant to put the landlord in possession of the building if he bonafide needs the buildings for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him: Provided that the Rent Control Court shall not give any such 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 reasons, in any particular case it will be just and proper to do so: Provided further that the Rent Control Court shall not give any direction to 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: Provided also that no landlord whose right to recover possession arises under an instrument of transfer inter vivos shall be entitled to apply to be put in possession until the expiry of one year from the date of instrument: Provided always that if a landlord after obtaining an order to be put in possession transfers his rights in respect of the building to another person, the transferee shall not be entitled to be put in possession unless he proves that he bonafide needs the building for his own occupation or for the occupation by any member of his family dependent on him.” 4. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for this purpose has drawn attention of this court to the statement made by the landlord [PW-1]. In the cross-examination, the respondent [landlord] has stated that his market is a two storied building. There are 15 rooms in the ground floor of the two storied building and the first floor is open. Mr. Nath, learned counsel for this purpose has drawn attention of this court to the statement made by the landlord [PW-1]. In the cross-examination, the respondent [landlord] has stated that his market is a two storied building. There are 15 rooms in the ground floor of the two storied building and the first floor is open. All the rooms in the ground floor of the building are of the same size, measuring 8’X8’ and he carries on his business in a space comprising three rooms. His sons carry on the business sitting in the same premise. The business run by him is of clothes and garments and his entire family is dependant on the income generated from the said business. Other than one shop premise, the rest of the shop premises are vacant. The predecessor of the petitioner was indicted under him as the tenant. For the last 15-20 years their predecessor was his tenant. After lapse of every 2 years a new agreement regarding tenancy is executed. Mr. Nath, learned counsel has submitted that the respondent [landlord] has enough vacant rooms for expanding his business or utilizing the same and thus, in view of sub-section 3 of Section 12 of the RCC Act, this petition for eviction cannot not lie. 5. On the other hand, Mr. P. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that this being a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and hence, this court may exercise circumspection in the perspective fact. In respect of the bonafide need and the element of the livelihood of the tenant, all the courts below have returned the finding that the tenant has other source of income and the income for livelihood does not only generate from the proceeding premises. That apart, so far the bonafide need is concerned, the tenant cannot determine the need of the landlord. In this regard, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has relied on a decision of the apex court in Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar (Mrs.) vs. Traders & Agencies & Anr., reported in (1996) 5 SCC 344 . In Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar (supra) the apex court has laid down the principle by observing as under: “As pointed out by this Court it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live and that he is the best judge of his residential requirement. In Meenal Eknath Kshirsagar (supra) the apex court has laid down the principle by observing as under: “As pointed out by this Court it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live and that he is the best judge of his residential requirement. If the landlord desires to beneficially enjoy his own property when the other property occupied by his as a tenant or on any other basis is either insecure or inconvenient it is not for the courts to dictate him to continue to occupy such premises.” 6. That apart, Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel, having submitted on the ambit of exercising the supervisory jurisdiction has relied on a decision of the apex court in Kokkanda B. Poondacha & Ors. vs. K.D. Ganapati & Anr., reported in AIR 2011 SC 1353 . In that report, the apex court has restated the law as decided earlier in Shalini Shyam Shetty vs. Rajendra Shankar Patil, reported in 2010 AIR SCW 6387, where the apex court had laid down as under: "Article 227 can be invoked by the High Court suo motu as a custodian of justice. An improper and a frequent exercise of this power will be counterproductive and will divest this extraordinary power of its strength and vitality. The power is discretionary and has to be exercised very sparingly on equitable principle. This reserve and exceptional power of judicial intervention is not to be exercised just for grant of relief in individual cases but should be directed for promotion of public confidence in the administration in the larger public interest whereas Article 226 is meant for protection of individual grievances. Therefore, the power under Article 227 may be unfettered but its exercise is subject to high degree of judicial discipline. The object of superintendence under Article 227, both administrative and judicial, is to maintain efficiency, smooth and orderly functioning of the entire machinery of justice in such a way as it does not bring it into any disrepute. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court." 7. The power of interference under Article 227 is to be kept to the minimum to ensure that the wheel of justice does not come to a halt and the fountain of justice remains pure and unpolluted in order to maintain public confidence in the functioning of the tribunals and courts subordinate to the High Court." 7. In Kokkanda B. Poondacha (supra) the apex court has stepped further by observing as follows: “When the subordinate Court has assumed a jurisdiction which it does not have or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction which it does have or the jurisdiction though available is being exercised by the Court in a manner not permitted by law and failure of justice or grave injustice has occasioned thereby, the High Court may step in to exercise its supervisory jurisdiction.” Though the reference has been made in Kokkanda B. Poondacha (supra) to Surya Dev Rai vs. Ram Chander Rai & others, reported in (2003) 6 SCC 675 but interpretation expanding the ambit of Surya Dev Rai (supra) has been interfered by the apex court on reference. That part of the observations will not be followed in this case for obvious reason. 8. Mr. Chakraborty, learned counsel has also relied on a decision for the same purpose rendered in R.C. Tamrakar & Anr. Vs. Nidi Lekha, reported in (2001) 8 SCC 431 . In Para-10 of the said decision, the apex court has enunciated the law as under: “10. Law is well settled that it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live and that he is the best judge of his residential requirement. In deciding the question of the bona fide requirement, it is unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.” 9. Law is well settled that it is for the landlord to decide how and in what manner he should live and that he is the best judge of his residential requirement. In deciding the question of the bona fide requirement, it is unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself.” 9. Having appreciated the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, this court finds that by the judgment dated 07.02.2012 delivered in RCC case No.01 of 2018, the rent control court has observed as follows: “Now, the proposition of law is that even though the landlord petitioner has bonafide need of the suit premises for his own occupation or for his son, this court cannot give an order of eviction of the tenant-OP from the suit premises if it is found that the landlord has another building in his possession in the same town or village except for special reasons. In the case in hand, it is proved that the landlord petitioner has other vacant rooms in his possession not only in the same town but also in the same building. Therefore, I find that this court cannot direct the tenant petitioner to put the landlord in possession of the suit premises unless for special reason.” Thereafter, the rent control court has further observed as under: “Therefore, I find that the OPs have other business other then the business in the suit premises. The newspaper publication is also supported and proved by PW-2 Sri Pradip Datta Bhowmik, the Editor and publisher of Dainik Sambad daily newspaper who deposed that Ext.6 was published on getting the prayer of Sanjib Roy, [the defendant No.3]. PW-2 also proved Ext.7 which is the copy of the prayer/application form. **** **** **** Therefore, I find that the evidence of PW-1 as to the fact that tenant/OP has so many other business is believable. Besides this, from Ext.-C,D and E, I find that the tenant/OP, Sabitri Rani Roy and Rajesh Roy and Sri Bijoy Roy have other business of Silk Emporium and Ramkrishna Medical Stores. Therefore, considering all this aspect I find that the tenant/Ops have other business other than the business of Ramkrishna Cloth stores in the suit premises and hence, they are not dependent on the income derived from the suit premises.” 10. Therefore, considering all this aspect I find that the tenant/Ops have other business other than the business of Ramkrishna Cloth stores in the suit premises and hence, they are not dependent on the income derived from the suit premises.” 10. These findings of the rent control court have been affirmed by the appellate authority by the judgment dated 27.02.2012 delivered in RCC (Appeal) No.01 of 2011. In Para- 8 of the judgment, the appellate authority has observed in the following manner: “8. Another ground of appellants is that if they are evicted from the rented premises then Appellant No.3 will have no other suitable accommodation for his business and he will have to die in starvation with his family members. In this regard Learned Court below in discussing Issue No.3 stated it that the Ext.6(paper publication) which was an advertisement in the Newspaper namely Dainik Sambad dated 25.05.2009 where the Appellants published an obituary on the death of their father late Haridas Roy and it was published by an on behalf of all workers and relatives (mentioning their names) of “Ramkrihna Store”, “Silk Emporium”, “Ramkrishna Medical Stores” and “Ramkrishna Varieties”. I consider that the decision taken by Learned Court below that the Appellants have other business other than the business in the said suit premise since Exts. C, D and E are indicating the same. So, relates with this ground in the appeal of the Appellants that the present Appellant No.3 is dependent on the income derived from the suit premise is not established and apart from this above assertion of the appellant is also beyond the pleadings and rightly Learned Court below opined that the same cannot be looked into, otherwise the landlord respondent would be prejudiced.” 11. When the said judgment dated 27.02.2012 was challenged in the revision filed under Section 22 of the RCC Act, the revisional court by the impugned judgment and order dated 08.08.2014 delivered in RCC (Revision) No.01 of 2012 has held that: “10. Before this revisional court it, is strenuously argued that the findings as to the bonafide requirement of the landlord arrived by the R.C. Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court was wrong and perverse. Before this revisional court it, is strenuously argued that the findings as to the bonafide requirement of the landlord arrived by the R.C. Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court was wrong and perverse. In this regard, it is also argued that both the Courts below most illegally and erroneously did not accept the plea of the tenant that the tenant petitioner no.3 was solely dependent on the income derived from the suit premise. In this regard, it is also argued that the appreciation of evidence of both the Courts below on the point was wrong and perverse, in as much as, they failed to appreciate that the petitioner tenant no.3 had no other suitable accommodation for earning his livelihood whereas the landlord had suitable accommodation in the same building itself. On the point, it is also argued that the learned Court below failed to take into consideration that the landlord has many other rooms in the same market. It is concluded that the learned Courts below having failed to exercise the jurisdiction properly, intervention of this revisional Court is necessary for the ends of justice.” 12. This court in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India does not find any sufficient reason to debase those findings and accordingly, this petition fails and hence, it is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Before parting with the records, it is directed that the respondents shall provide 6[six] months time from 01.08.2018 for vacation of the proceeding premise and after that no time should be permitted by any court. Hence, the tenant shall put the respondents in the vacant possession of the proceeding premises without fail with the stipulated time. It is further made clear that the tenant shall pay the rent in terms of the rate of the earlier tenancy. If the vacant possession is not handed over in terms of the above direction, it shall carry the damage @ Rs.5,000/- per month to be paid by the tenant. The interim order as passed earlier staying the impugned order dated 08.08.2014 delivered in RCC (Revision) No.01 of 2012 stands vacated.