MANOHAR KRISHNA POROBO TAMBA Vs. DENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE controversy is limited. Petitioner landlord had filed a petition against the respondents for their eviction from the suit premises. The respondents, on summons being served upon them, applied to the Rent Controller to deposit the rent. The application by the respondents to deposit the rent was allowed. Thereafter the petitioner moved the Rent Controller by applications dated 27th April 1988 and 13th February 1992. It was the case of the petitioner that the opponent Bank is in arrears of rent at the rate of Rs. 3000/- per month from 1st October 1987. It was the case of the petitioner vide application dated 13th February 1992 that the rent payable by the Deed of Lease dated 12th February 1987 was Rs. 70,000/- with effect from 1st January 1991. In defence it was the contention of the respondents that the application was not maintainable and that they had already applied to the Rent Tribunal for fixation of rent payable. The application for deposit was made on 5th April 1988. On 12th May 1988 Order was issued. It was not communicated to the Bank. They came to know about it on 13th June 1988 and then deposited arrears of rent from October 1987 to March 1988 amounting to Rs. 88,000/ -. Thereafter the Controller proceeded to dismiss the application dated 13th February 1992 filed by the petitioner under Section 32 (4) of the Rent Act. The respondents were directed to continue to deposit rent at the rate of Rs. 3014/- per month till the decision of the Rent Tribunal.

(2.) AGGRIEVED by the said Order, petitioner herein preferred an appeal before the Administrative Tribunal being Eviction Appeal No. 45 of 1993. In the course of the proceedings the petitioner moved an application dated 18th September 1996. In the said application it was pointed out that by an Order of 3rd June 1996, the respondents were directed to pay the arrears of rent at the rate specified in clause 1 of Lease Deed dated 12th February 1987. The arrears of rent, therefore, ought to have been deposited on 3rd July 1996. The petitioner, therefore prayed that order be passed under Section 32 (4) of the Rent Act.

(3.) THE Administrative Tribunal by an Order of 3rd June 1996 proposed to dispose of not only the appeal preferred but also the application filed by the landlord. The Tribunal first considered the application dated 13th November 1995 purported to be under Section 32 (5) of the Rent Act. After considering the contention of both the parties, the Tribunal directed production of the original challans or the Xerox copies within 10 days, failing which, it would be presumed that the respondents had not made payment of rent and consequently the landlord shall be put in possession of the suit premises in terms of Section 32 (4) of the Act.