MANIK LAL MAJUMDAR Vs. GOURANGA CHANDRA DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Few facts, which are considered necessary and relevant for disposal of this appeal, in short and substance, are the following :

(2.) The respondent No. 1 filed a petition for eviction under section 12 of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975 (for short 'the Act') on the grounds of bona fide requirement and default in payment of rent. The Rent Control Court held that the claim of bona fide requirement was not proved. However, it found that the appellants were defaulters in payment of rent and directed the appellants to hand over the possession of the building in question to the respondent No. 1. The appellants filed r. C. C. Appeal 4/1995 under Section 20 of the Act before the Civil judge (Senior Division) , West Tripura against the said order of the Rent Control Court. The learned Civil Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal holding that the appellants failed to deposit the arrears of rent as directed by the Rent Control court and the appeal filed by them without making deposit of arrears of rent was not maintainable in view of Section 13 (1) of the Act. Thereafter, the appellants filed revision petition in the court of the District Judge, Tripura, assailing the order passed by the learned Civil Judge in appeal. The learned District Judge allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the Civil judge in appeal and remanded the case to the appellate court for considering the petition for adducing additional evidence and for deciding the appeal afresh. The respondent No. 1, aggrieved by this order passed in the revision petition, filed a petition as civil Rule No. 466 of 1997 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Gauhati High court. A learned single Judge of the High court, after hearing the parties, finding some conflict in the decisions of this Court in Chinnamma v. Gopalan and others, (1995) 6 SCC 491 : 1995 (2) RCR (Rent) 521 (SC). and of division Bench of the High court in Binapani Roy and two others v. State of Tripura and two others, (1994) 1 GLR 98, felt that the decision of the Division Bench of the High court in Binapani Roy case required reconsideration by a larger bench to decide the following question :-

(3.) The learned Senior counsel for the appellants contended that the High court was not right and justified in taking a technical view in the matter; as in the case of contesting the proceedings before the Rent Controller, opportunity could be given by the appellate court for making payment of admitted rent due or depositing before the appeal is heard; saying that appeal itself could not be preferred without paying or depositing admitted arrears of rent may not be correct in view of Section 13 (3) of the act; if Section 13 is read as a whole, it will be clear that appeal preferred without payment or depositing of admitted arrears of rent, it could not be dismissed. On the other hand, further proceedings in the appeal could be stopped in case admitted arrears of rent were not paid or deposited. He placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in Chinnamma case (supra).