MANIK LAL MAJUMDAR Vs. GOURANGA CHANDRA DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In view of difference of opinion between two learned Judges, the present appeal was placed for hearing before this larger Bench and the issue involved is whether an appeal preferred u/s. 20 of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') without payment to the landlord or deposit with the appellate court all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected on that ground alone.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 Gouranga Chandra Dey filed an eviction petition u/s. 12 of the Act on the ground of bona fide requirement and also default in payment of rent. The appellant-tenant contested the petition taking various pleas. The Rent Control Court, after appraisal of evidence on record, recorded a finding that the plea raised by the landlord regarding bona fide requirement of the premises was not established, but the appellants were defaulters in payment of rent and accordingly passed an order directing their eviction and for handing over possession of the premises in question to respondent no. 1. The appellants preferred an appeal against the decision of the Rent Control Court, but the same was dismissed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), West Tripura, on the ground that as the appellants had failed to deposit the arrears of rent as directed by the Rent Control Court, the appeal preferred by them was not maintainable in view of Sec. 13(1) of the Act. Thereafter the appellants preferred a revision petition before the District Judge which was allowed and the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division) was set aside and the appeal was remanded for consideration on merits. Feeling aggrieved, respondent no. 1 filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution before the Gauhati High Court. The learned single judge who heard the petition was of the opinion that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Chinnamma V/s. Gopalan and others, 1995 6 SCC 491, an earlier Division Bench decision of Gauhati High Court in Binapani Roy & Ors. V/s. State of Tripura and others,1994 1 GLR 98 required reconsideration by a larger Bench. Thereafter the petition was heard by a Division Bench which came to the conclusion that the decision of this Court in Chinnamma V/s. Gopalan and others did not touch the controversy in dispute and accordingly the earlier decision rendered by the said High Court in Binapani Roy's case did not require reconsideration. It was further held that an appeal against an order u/s. 12 of the Act was not competent unless the provisions of Sec. 13(1) of the Act were complied with and, accordingly, the reference to the larger Bench made by the learned single judge was declined leaving the matter to be heard on merits by the learned single judge.

(3.) The appellants filed a Special Leave Petition against the decision of the High Court which, after grant of leave, was heard by a bench of two learned judges. Shivaraj V. Patil, J held that in view of Sec. 13(1) of the Act, before a tenant prefers an appeal u/s. 20 against an order of eviction made against him u/s. 12 of the Act, he must either pay to the landlord or deposit with the Rent Control Court all arrears of rent in view of explicit language used in Sec. 13(1) of the Act. However, D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. held that a tenant can file or present a memorandum of appeal in accordance with sub-sec. (1) of Sec. 20 of the Act, but until and unless he seeks an order from the appellate authority in accordance with sub-sec. (2) of Sec. 13 and makes deposit of all arrears of rent and continues to pay future rent in the manner and within the time directed by the appellate authority, he would not be entitled to prosecute the appeal and obtain any interim or final relief against the order of the Rent Control Court as is contemplated in sub-sec. (2) & (3) respectively of the said Section.