SANJIB SAHA Vs. HIMANGSHU SAHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition is filed by the petitioner tenant under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned judgment dated 20.4.2007 of the Revisional Court passed in RCC (Rev) No. 02 of 2006 dismissing the revision, petition filed under Section 22(1) of the Tripura Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1975 and upholding the judgment dated 22.3.2006 of the Appellate Court of the Rent Control Cases, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala passed in RCC Appeal No. 26 of 2005 preferred under Section 20 of the Tripura Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1975 hereinafter referred to as 'the Act', directing the respondent tenant to put the appellant landlord in possession of the rented premises subject to the provisions of Clause (c) of Section 12(2) of the Act and as provided under Section 12(10) of the Act, after setting aside the judgment dated 23.11.2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, Rent Control Court, Agartala, West Tripura in RCC 7 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the petition filed under Section 12(3) of the Act by the respondent landlord was rejected and the opposite party petitioner tenant was directed to clear up the arrear of the rent within forty-five days from the date of the order, failing which the tenant shall hand over the vacant possession of the rented premises to the landlord.

(2.) The brief history of the case in hand is that the petitioner was a tenant under one Jogesh Chandra Saha, the original landlord since deceased, under an agreement for five years with effect from 1.6.1996 to 31.5.2001 at a monthly rent of Rs. 650 per month and after expiry of such lease term, the said Jogesh Ch. Saha asked the petitioner tenant to vacate the rented premises as he intended to sell the said rented premises clue to his bona fide need of money. The petitioner tenant did not respond to it. Thereafter, the original landlord by a registered deed No. 1-7576 transferred the rented premises to the present respondent landlord Sri Himangshu Saha on 20.6.2002. The present respondent landlord also requested the petitioner tenant to vacate the rented premises for starting a business for his own livelihood and of his dependant family members. Ultimately, the present respondent landlord sent a notice to the petitioner tenant on 5.10.2002 by registered post demanding vacation of the rented premises within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of the said notice. But the petitioner tenant did not vacate the said rented premises. Then the respondent landlord filed a case under Section 12(3) of the Act for eviction of the petitioner tenant and the said suit was ultimately disposed of as premature. In the result, the petitioner tenant continued in possession of the suit premises. Again on 26.10.2004, the respondent landlord sent another notice demanding arrear rent of Rs. 15,812 for the period from 20.8.2002 to 30.9.2004 at the rate of Rs. 650 per, month. On receipt of the said notice, the petitioner tenant desired to know the Bank Account number of the respondent landlord for depositing the arrear rent and monthly rent in the said account, but the petitioner tenant disagreed to vacate the suit premises. The respondent landlord then furnished his Bank account, but the petitioner tenant did not deposit the arrear rent and current rent thereafter except part of the arrear rent and that too in installments. Thus, the petitioner tenant became defaulter in payment of the arrear rent and monthly rent of the rented premises and the respondent landlord filed the petition under Section 112(3) of the Act to put him in possession of the rented premises for bona fide need of the rented premises which was Registered as RCC No. 7 of 2005 before the Rent Control Court.

(3.) The petitioner tenant contested the said suit by filing written objection wherein he denied the allegations made by the respondent landlord that he was the defaulter in payment of the rent. The petitioner tenant also disputed the bona fide necessity of the respondent landlord.