MANORANJAN DEY Vs. MUKUNDA DEB BARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the challenge is paused to the order, dated 25.09.2002, passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura. Agartala, as revisional Authority under the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, in RCC (Revision) No. 3/2001, dismissing the revision and thereby upholding the order of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No.1, West Tripura, Agartala, passed as appellate authority, in RCC Rent Control Case (Appeal) No. 10/95, setting aside the order, dated 28.08.95. passed, in Rent Control Case No. 27/90, by the learned Rent Control Court, Agartala, and directing the tenant-revision petitioners of hand over the vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the land lord opposite party within 30 days from the date of the order.

(2.) The facts, which are material for disposal of the writ petition, may, in a nut-shell, be set out as follows : (i) The respondent No.1 herein, as plaintiff, had filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act" in the Rent Control Court, Agartala, for eviction of the defendants (who are now, petitioners) and the proforma respondents herein from the tenanted premises on the ground of defauler in respect of payment of rent. The said application was registered as Misc. case No. 27(RCC)/1990. The learned Rent Control Court rejected the said Misc. application, on contest, by its order, dated 28.8.1995. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 as landlord, preferred an appeal, being RCC Appeal No. 10/1995, in the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Court No. 1, West Tripura Agartala, as the appellate Authority of Rent Control Cases. The said appeal was allowed by judgment and order, dated 15.1.1997, thereby setting aside the order, dated 28.8.1995, aforementioned passed by the learned Rent Control Court and holding that the defendants petitioners and proforma respondents would hand over the vacant possession of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff respondent No.1 within 45 days; otherwise, the respondent No. 1 plaintiff would be entitled to get recovery of possession of the tenanted premises, etc. The learned appellate Authority further held that the defendants and the proforma respondents would be at liberty to pay arrear of rents, as claimed by the respondent No.1 plaintiff in the original eviction petition within 45 days and if the defendants and the proforma respondents pay the entire arrear of rents, the order of the appellate Authority would not affect their interest and in that event, the said order, dated 15.1.1997, would become infructuous. The defendants and the profoma-respondents, thereafter, filed civil Revision (RCC) No. 04/ 1997 in the Court of learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, as the revisional Authority of the Rent Control cases, challenging the judgment and order, dated 15.1.1997, aforementioned, passed by the learned appellate Authority in RCC Appeal No. 10/ 1997. The said Civil Revision (RCC) No. 04/ 1997 was admitted and heard on merit and by judgment and order, dated 16.12.1998, passed therein, the learned District Judge set aside the judgment and order, dated 15.1.1997, aforementioned passed in RCC Appeal No. 10/1997 and remanded the matter to the learned appellate Authority i.e., Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala, forpassingjudgment within two months after hearing the arguments of both sides. The appellate Authority, then, heard the matter as directed by the learned District Judge and by his order, dated 16.12.1998, passed in Civil Revision (RCC) No. 04/1997, allowed the appeal byjudgment and order, dated4.5.2001, passed inRCC Appeal No. 10/1995 aforementioned with direction to the defendants petitioners and the pro forma respondents herein to hand over vacant possession of the tenanted premises within 30 days failing which the respondent No.1 plaintiff would be entitled to get possession of the premises through due process of law. (ii) The petitioners and the proforma-respondents, as stated hereinabove, filed Title Suit No. 86/1991 for specific performance of contract for getting a valid sale deed duly executed and registered by the respondent No.1 in resect of the tenanted premises of Misc. Case No. 27 (RCC) 1990 on the basis of an agreement, dated 14.12.1979, between the respondent No.1 and the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and the proforma-respondents. The said suit was contested by the respondent No. 1 and after trial, the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Dim), Court No.1, West Tripura, Agartala passed the judgment and order, dated 4.12.1995, in title Suit No. 86/1991 aforementioned dismissing the suit. Against the said judgment and the decree, which followed, the present petitioners and the proforma-respondents filed Title Appeal No. 14/1996 before the learned District Judge, West Tripura, and the said appeal was also dismissed byjudgment and order dated 17.1.1997, whereafter the petitioners and the proforma respondents preferred Second Appeal No. 16/1997 before this Court, which is pending for hearing.

(3.) Being aggrieved by the judgment and order, dated 25.9.2002 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala, as Revisional Authority of Rent Control Cases, in RCC (Rev) No. 3/2001, and the judgment and order, dated 4.5.2001, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 1. West Tripura, Agartala, as Appellate Authority of Rent Control Cases, in RCC (Appeal) No. 10/ 1995, arising out of the final order, dated 28.8.1995, passed by the Rent Control Court, Agartala (the then Sadar Munsiff, Agartala) in Case No. 27(RCC)/1990, the present petitioners have, now, come before this Court with the help of this application made under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.