SUSHIL CHANDRA PALIT Vs. DHANI BEHERA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is the landlord and opposite party No. 1 is the tenant. The tenancy is according to the English calendar month. Opposite party No. 1 was inducted into the shop room in question bearing Municipality Holding No. 471 (Old 430) in ward No. 3 on the Balu bazar main read. The rent payable was Rs. 23/ - per month. The tenant was also to pay the municipal tax be sides rent. House Rent Control Case No. 109 of 1960 was filed by the landlord for eviction of the tenant on the ground that he was impairing the value and utility of the room. The House Rent Controller (hereinafter referred to as the Controller) dismissed the application. The eviction was, however, ordered on 6 -9 -1963 at the appellate stage. A writ 'application filed by the tenant against the appellate order was dismissed on 21 -10 -1963. The landlord filed Execution Case No. 26 of 1964 wherein the tenant took a plea that there was a fresh tenancy. This objection was over ruled by the authorities below and the tenant filed Misc. Appeal No. 63 of 1965 in the High Court against the order allowing the execution after over ruling his objection that there was a new tenancy. In the appeal, the tenant asked for stay of the Execution case. Stay was granted subject to the condition that he would deposit the entire arrear rent from April 1965 to August 1965 and would continue payment of the current rent every month till the disposal of the appeal. The tenant did not comply with the peremptory order and the stay was vacated. Ultimately, however, the case was remanded by the High Court with a direction that unless he deposited rent from September 1965 to August 1966 his objection would not be heard. After remand, both the authorities disbelieved the case of new tenancy. The tenant filed misc. Appeal no 8 of 1967 against that order. The appeal was allowed by the High Court on the short ground that no notice under Section 106 of the T.P. Act had been served on the tenant and the tenancy had not been terminated.

(2.) BOTH the controller and the appellate authority concurrently held that the landlord failed to establish the grounds for eviction. The writ application has been tiled under Articles 26 and 227 of the Constitution for quashing the aforesaid orders.

(3.) THE only question for consideration, therefore, is whether the tenant is liable to be evicted for being in arrears of rent.