PUSPA RANI DEY Vs. ASHISH DASGUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the judgment and order dated 14.06.2016 delivered in RCC (Revision) 5 of 2013 on affirmance of the judgment and order dated 11.09.2013 delivered in RCC (A) No.1 of 2013 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority [the civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1] West Tripura, Agartala. By the said judgment dated 11.09.2013 the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the judgment and order of eviction dated 05.01.2013 delivered in RCC 33 of 2005 by the Rent Control Court [the court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.1], Agartala, West Tripura.

(2.) A petition under Section 12(2)(b)(3) of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1995, in short the RCC Act for eviction of the tenant, the respondent herein, from the proceeding premise was instituted by the original petitioner who has been substituted by the present petitioners [on his death] for getting the vacant possession on two grounds viz: (i) for default of payment of rent and (ii) for bonafide need of the petitioners. In addition thereto, relief for deposit of the rent, with arrear and interest @ 6%, was sought by the petitioners.

(3.) Briefly stated, the petitioners have averred that the respondent was inducted in the proceeding premises on the basis of an unregistered deed for a period of three years with effect from 01.07.1999 to 13.06.2002 on monthly rent of Rs.900/- per month. A sum of Rs.30,000/- was however deposited by the respondent to the original landlord namely Shib Sankar Dey as security on condition that on expiry of the 'lease period' [be read as the tenancy period] the respondent will vacate the suit premise and the landlord will return the security deposit. But after expiry of the tenancy period since the respondent did not hand over the proceeding premise the original landlord repeatedly requested him to vacate the premise as his daughter was unemployed and she would start a business in that premise. That apart, the original landlord was scheduled to retire on 01.08.1991. Thus he had plan to utilise the proceeding premise by doing the business. The respondent assured to vacate the same, but ultimately did not vacate. Even he did not pay any rent for continuance in the tenancy.