KANAN BALA BANK Vs. BABUL DEB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for quashing the judgment and order dated 25.11.99 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in R.C. Revision No. 1 of 1999 dismissing the Revision Petition and upholding the judgment dated 02.12.98 passed by Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Court No. 1 West Tripura, Agartala acting as Appellate Authority in Rent Control Court Appeal No. 5 of 1998 thereby up-holding the judgment and order dated 7.7.98 passed by Civil Judge, Jr. Division, West Tripura, Agartala (Rent Control Court) in R.C.C. 11/81 thereby ordering eviction of the petitioner tenants.

(2.) The respondents -1 and 2 who are the landlords and owners of the premises, while they were minors, brought proceedings before the Rent Control Court praying for eviction of the tenants. The present respondents are the legal heirs of the original tenants. The grounds on which the eviction has been sought for are (1) default in payment of rent, (ii) sub-letting of the suit premises and (iii) bonafide need of the premises by the landlords. The proceedings have chequered history. The proceedings being R.C.C. Case 11/81 was brought through the guardian of the minor landlords on 14.8.81 and on ground of default in deposit of the arrear and current rents an order was passed for eviction of the tenants on 6.2.84 and by another order dated 6.4.84 proceedings was terminated. An application for setting aside the order of eviction dated 6.4.84 was filed which was registered as Misc. Case No. 83 of 1984, was dismissed by the Rent Control Court under order dated 27.7.85. Thereafter, a Review Petition being Misc. Case No. 138/85 was filed which was also rejected under order dated 12.8.85. An appeal was filed being Appeal Misc (RCC) No. 22/85 which was rejected by the appellate authority under order dated 11.10.85. A revision petition against the order of the appellate authority was also rejected by the District Judge, West Tripura while exercising the power as Revisional authority by order dated 21.11.85. Thereafter, the tenants filed an application under Art. 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court, but the said application was also dismissed by the High Court under order dated 23.11.92. Against the order of the High Court, an S.L.P. was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and under order dated 24.8.94 the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the appellate court and High Court and remitted back to the appellate authority to decide the matter on merit after considering whether on the basis of explanation offered in the application dated 18.4.84 filed by the tenant, there was sufficient cause within the purview of Section 13(3) of the Tripura Building (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975 (hereinafter refers to as the Act. Thereafter, the appellate authority in RCC Appeal No. 22/85 allowed the appeal holding that the appellant tenants had shown sufficient cause in their application dated 18.4.84 for not depositing the rent within time. Again, a revision petition was preferred against the order of the appellate authority which was also rejected. Thereafter, an application under Art. 227 of the Constitution was also filed challenging the aforesaid order of the revisional authority and that of the appellate authority which were also ultimately rejected by the High Court under order dated 14.11.95. Thereafter the proceedings continued before the R.C.C. and by a final order dated 7.7.98 the Rent Control Court passed an order for eviction of the tenants on the ground of default in payment of rent, sub-letting and bonafide need of the landlords. Appeal carried against the aforesaid order was also rejected by the appellate authority under order dated 31.8.98 passed in R.C.C. (Appeal) No. 5/98. The Revision petition being 11/98 which was carried against the order of the appellate authority was also rejected under order dated 25.11.99. Hence the present application under Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The relevant provisions for consideration in the present case is Section 12 and 13 of the Act. The grounds taken by the landlords, as noted above, i.e. default in payment of rent, sub-letting and bonafide need of the landlords are some of the grounds provided for in Section 12 of the Act. Again, under Section 13 of the Act there is specific provisions requiring the tenants to pay to the landlords or deposit with the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority all arrear of rent admitted by the tenants to be due and continue to pay or deposit the same until the termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority as the case may be. In case of failure of the tenants to deposit or make payment of the rent as aforesaid the tenants are prohiibited from contesting the proceedings or file appeal against any order passed against them.