NEPAL CHANDRA PODDAR Vs. SWAPAN KUMAR ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 115 CPC is directed against the order dated 22.07.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in R.C.C. (Revision) 9 of 1997 and also the order dated 24.6.2003 passed by the same District Judge in Civil Misc. (Review) 202 of 2002 declining the review the order passed by him in the said revision case.

(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of this petition are that the respondent in this case had filed an application before the learned Rent Control Court, Agartala, West Tripura seeking eviction of the petitioner under Section 12(3) of the Tripura Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1975 (hereinafter called 'the Act') on the ground of bonafide need. It would appear that originally the father of the respondent was the owner of the rented premises and during his life time he gifted the same to the mother of the respondent in the year 1986 by a registered gift deed and that the respondent purchased the said premises from his mother by a registered sale deed in the year 1992 and became the landlord of the petitioner. The respondent is Ex-serviceman and after his retirement he wanted to start a business in the rented premises for which he sought for eviction of the petitioner from the said premises. The petitioner contented the said case and submitted his written objection denying the claim of the respondent that the rented premises was required for his bonafide purpose to start a business. The petitioner also stated that the rented premises is the only source of his livelihood and his son, daughter and wife are solely dependent upon the income of the petitioner and that he has no other premises to run his business except the suit premises. It was also the case of the petitioner that the respondent and his mother and brother have got so many shop huts adjacent to the suit premises and they have rented those premises to other persons and other shop keepers were giving higher rent as demanded by the respondent and as such they were not asked to be evicted from the said premises. The petitioner also denied that the respondent required the premises to run a business therein. After hearing the parties, the learned Rent Control Court passed final order on 13.03.1996 allowing the said eviction petition on the ground of bonafide need of the respondent. It was ordered therein that the petitioner was to hand over the possession of the rented premises to the respondent within a period of six months observing that the petitioner can built a suitable building in his house which is located in the same locality for carrying his business. Aggrieved by the order dated 13.03.1996 the petitioner filed an appeal before the learned Appellate Court being R.C.C. Appeal No. 12 of 1996. After hearing the parties, the learned Appellate Court by the Judgment dated 18.8.1997 set aside the order dated 13.03.1996 passed by the learned Rent Control Court with the finding that the respondent has been getting pension from Armed Force regularly to maintain his family, whereas the petitioner has no other alternative source of income other than the income from the business carried on in the lease hold premises. Thereafter, the respondent filed a revision petition before the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala which was numbered as R.C.C. (Revision) 9/1997 to set aside the order of the learned Appellate Court and to uphold the order of the learned Rent Control Court. After hearing the parties, the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala by the Judgment dated 22.7.2002 allowed the revision petition filed by the respondent and set aside the order passed by the learned Appellate Court and affirmed the order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Control Court vide Judgment dated 13.03.1996. Aggrieved by the said Judgment dated 22.7.2002, the petitioner filed a review petition before the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala which was registered as Civil Misc. (Review) 202/2002, but the learned district Judge by Judgment dated 24.06.2003 dismissed the review petition mainly on the ground that a mere error of law or erroneous finding of fact cannot be a ground for review. It is under the aforesaid circumstances that the petitioner has filed this second revision petition.

(3.) Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.