SANJOY CHANDA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Sec. 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment and decree dtd. 2/8/2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala, in Money Suit No.40 of 2015.

(2.) The short facts are that the appellant herein was the original defendant of the Money Suit no. 40 of 2015. The respondent-plaintiffs of the instant appeal were the plaintiffs of the said Money Suit. The respondent-plaintiffs (here-in-after referred to as the plaintiffs) had instituted the suit for realization of rent of Rs.1,04,245.00 out of the premises occupied by the defendant-appellants (here-in-after referred to as the defendants). The defendant was running the hospital canteen since 2009 for a rent @ Rs.36,295.00 per month. After expiry of almost three years, the plaintiffs invited fresh Expression of Interest (for short, "EOI"). The defendant alongwith others participated in the said "EOI". In the process of evaluation, the defendant was selected as a successful bidder. Upon his selection, the plaintiff no. 2 issued Office Order dtd. 29/8/2012 in favour of him asking him to start the canteen by 1/9/2012. The defendant vide communication dtd. 31/8/2012 had accepted the offer. However, he stated in the said communication that due to lack of proper and adequate infrastructure in the canteen, it was not possible for him to start the canteen w.e.f. 1/9/2012. He further stated that complete renovation of the canteen was required before effecting the new accepted rate. He has further requested to the plaintiff no. 2 to allow him to continue the operation of the canteen at the existing old rate/terms and conditions till renovation of the same. The defendant also expressed his inability to start operation and management of the college canteen due to lack of required infrastructure i.e. there was no kitchen, no water, etc. To develop the infrastructure, he requested the plaintiff no. 2 to allow him 15 days time since he had received the offer only on 31/8/2012. The defendant also requested the plaintiffs by communication dtd. 31/8/2012 to consider the rate of imposing penalty @10% in case of delay of depositing monthly revenue within 1st week of every month. The defendant made further communication dtd. 30/9/2014 (Exhibit-J) whereby and whereunder he requested the Medical Superintendent i.e. plaintiff no. 2 to relieve him from the canteen premise which was occupied by him. In the said communication, he stated that despite eight months had elapsed over since submission of his letter dtd. 18/1/2014, he could not receive any response from the plaintiff no. 2. It was further stated that he was directed to continue with the canteen service until the next tender is floated. It was further stated that he had followed the said direction of plaintiff no. 2. He further stated that new tender was already floated and that was opened too. Thereafter, there was handing over and taking over of the hospital canteen between plaintiff no. 2 and the defendant which had taken place on 28/11/2014.

(3.) What is gathered from the pleadings of both the plaintiffs and the defendant that during the intervening period, the defendant did not pay the rent for the canteen premise wherefrom he was operating his services. Despite repeated requests, the defendant did not pay the rent either at the old rate of Rs.36,295.00 nor the new rate of Rs.1,04,245.00. Ultimately, the plaintiffs had filed the instant suit.