Tripura High Court
Smt. Dali Roy vs Sri Pradip Kr. Ghosh on 19 December, 2022
Page - 1 of 18
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
CRP No.31 of 2021
1. Smt. Dali Roy,
Wife of late Kamal Krishna Roy
2. Smt. Manika Roy,
Daughter of late Kamal Krishna Roy
3. Smt. Debika Roy,
Daughter of late Kamal Krishna Roy
All are residents of 36, Akhaura Road, Agartala, P.S. West Agartala
[Petitioner No.2 & 3 are represented by their constituted Power of Attorney, i.e.,
Petitioner No.1, namely Smt. Dali Roy]
4. Smt. Krishna Prasad Roy,
Wife of Rajib Prasad Roy
Daughter of late Kamal Krishna Roy
Resident of 164, Appear Garden, Assansol, P.S Assansol, Dist Bardhwman,
Pashchimbanga.
[Represented by her Power of Attorney, Smt. Manika Roy, the petitioner No.1 of
this instant petition]
5. Sri Abhijit Roy,
Son of late Kamal Krishna Roy,
Resident of C-14, Ganeshnagar, Pandabnagar Complex, P.S. Pandabnagar, Delhi-92
[Represented by his Power of Attorney, Smt. Manika Roy, the Petitioner No.1 of this
instant Petition]
----- Petitioner(s)
Versus
Sri Pradip Kr. Ghosh,
Son of Harendra Ghosh
Dealer of F.P. shop No.74,
Resident of Town Pratapgarh, P.S West Agartala, Dist West Tripura
-----Respondent(s)
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P. Roy Barman, Sr. Adv.
Mr. K. Nath, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Nandi, Adv.
Date of Hearing : 7th December, 2022.
Date of Pronouncement : 19th December, 2022.
Whether fit for reporting : YES
CRP No.31 of 2021
Page - 2 of 18
B_E_F_O_R_E_
HON‟BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G. CHATTOPADHYAY
JUDGMENT & ORDER
This civil revision petition is directed against the judgment and
order dated 11.03.2020 passed by the Additional District Judge (Court No.4),
(Revisional Authority), West Tripura, Agartala in case No. R.C.C(Revision) 05 of
2014.
[2] The factual backgrounds of the case is as under:
Smt. Dali Roy, her three daughters namely, Manika Roy, Debika
Roy and Krishna Roy and son Abhijit Roy filed an application against their tenant
Pradip Kr. Ghosh under section 12(2) of the Tripura Building (Lease & Rent Control)
Act, 1975 seeking to evict the said tenant on the ground of their bona fide needs.
Their application was registered as case No.RCC 16 of 2012 before the Rent Control
Court [Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Court No.1 at Agartala].
[3] The landlord petitioners pleaded before the Rent Control Court that
they wanted eviction of the said tenant mainly for amicable partition of the building
among the co-sharers for which they approached the tenant several times but the
said tenant paid no heed to their request. This apart, the landlord petitioners also
pleaded before the Rent Control Court that the building is more than 100 years old
as a result of which it has become dilapidated and unworthy of human living.
Apprehending danger, they wanted to demolish the building so that every co-
sharers of the property gets adequate space for living in the reconstructed house.
[4] In his reply, the opposite party tenant pleaded that if evicted from
the suit premises, it would be difficult for him to maintain his family since there are
very limited number of consumers in his ration shop No.74 at Pratapgarh, Agartala.
CRP No.31 of 2021
Page - 3 of 18
The tenant further pleaded that in absence of any damage certificate of the building
and Municipality approved plan for reconstruction of the same, the landlord
petitioners' application for eviction of the tenant has no foundation. The Rent
Control Court framed three issues in the case which are as under:
(i) Whether the case is maintainable?
(ii) Whether the landlord petitioners could establish their bona fide
need?
(iii) Whether the landlord petitioners are entitled to the relief as prayed
for?
[5] The trial court recorded the evidence of one of the landlord
petitioners and accepted 4(four) documentary evidence on behalf of the landlord
petitioners. On the side of the tenant, one witness was examined and 8(eight)
documents were exhibited.
[6] With regard to the bona fide need of the landlord petitioners, the
trial court having relied on the evidence adduced on behalf of the landlord
petitioners came to hold that the ground of their bona fide need was established by
the landlord petitioners. Consequently, the learned trial court allowed the petition
and directed the tenant opposite party to put the landlord petitioners in possession
of the rented premises within 60(sixty) days. It would be appropriate to reproduce
the following extract of the judgment of the trial court:
"7. As per justice, equity and good conscience, a owner has
preferential right to enjoy his land in comparison to others and, in the
present case, as admittedly, the original and all subsequent tenancy
agreement in between the landlord-petitioners and tenant-opposite
party is expired and tenant-opposite party is holding the rented
premises as a tenant of month to month, an eviction order can be
passed in favour of the landlord-petitioners specially in the
circumstances where the tenant-opposite party admitted that the
tenant-opposite party has another business of ration shop at Town
Pratapgarh. As the tenant-opposite party has a ration shop at Town
CRP No.31 of 2021
Page - 4 of 18
Pratapgarh it cannot be said that the tenant-opposite party is mainly
dependent on the income derived from the rented premises for his
livelihood.
Considering the comparative hardship, I find, the present if an
eviction order is passed the tenant-opposite party can start his
business by taking a rented house near the suit premises as the tenant-
opposite party admitted in cross examination that some shop premises
opened in the same locality. On the contrary, if eviction order is not
passed then the landlord-petitioners cannot enjoy their land by making
partition of their own land and would fact more hardship than the
tenant-opposite party.
Thus, considering all this aspect, I find, the suit/rented
premises is bonafidely required to the landlord-petitioners for making
pathway to facilitate the amicable partition of the land of landlord-
petitioners.
8. However, as regards the plea and evidence of the landlord-
petitioners that the rented premises is required on the ground that the
rented premises is very old and dilapidated condition and required to
be reconstructed, I am of the view that to get an eviction order of any
tenant on the ground to demolish and for reconstruction of rented
premises, as per Section 12(4) (iv) of the Tripura Buildings (Lease &
Rent Control) Act, 1975, where plan and licence are necessary, the
landlord must satisfy the Rent Control Court that the landlord has plan
and licence but, in the present case, no plan and licence are submitted
by landlord-petitioners, for which, no eviction order can be passed for
demolish and reconstruction of the rented premises considering the
same as bonafide need of landlord-petitioners.
Therefore, considering all this aspect, issue No.(ii) is decided in
affirmative and in favour of the landlord-petitioners.
9. Issue No.(i) & (iii):- For the sake of convenience, these two
issues are taken up together for decision. In these two issues I have to
decide whether case is maintainable and whether the landlord-
petitioners are entitled to relief as prayed for and or any other relief or
reliefs in this case.
In this respect, I am of the view that as issue No.(ii) is decided
in affirmative and in favour of the landlord-petitioners, the case of the
landlord-petitioners is maintainable and the landlord-petitioners are
entitled to a relief of possession of the rented premises by evicting the
tenant-opposite party from the rented premises. Except the above
mentioned relief the landlord-petitioners are not entitled to get any
other relief or reliefs in this case.
Accordingly, issue No.(i) & (iii) are also decided in affirmative
and in favour of the landlord-petitioners.
ORDER
In the result, the case of the landlord-petitioners are allowed on contest with cost with a direction to the tenant-opposite party to put the landlord-petitioners in possession of the rented premises as CRP No.31 of 2021 Page - 5 of 18 described in the schedule below by removing all obstruction created by him within 60 days from today."
[7] Aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment of the Rent Control Court, the opposite party tenant filed a statutory appeal under sub section (1) of section 20 of the Tripura Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1975. The tenant filed the said appeal mainly on the following grounds:
(i) The trial court did not appreciate the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence adduced by the tenant.
(ii) The trial court failed to appreciate that the landlord petitioners could not produce any building plan approached by the Municipality to establish their claim that they require the building for demolition and reconstruction.
(iii) The trial court did not also appreciate the fact that the tenant was carrying on business in the rented premises and it was the only source of his livelihood.
(iv) The trial court erroneously decided that the landlord petitioners were entitled to the relief of eviction of the tenant from the suit premises.
[8] Having heard the parties, the statutory Appellate Authority [Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.1, Agartala] by judgment and order dated 26.07.2014 set aside the judgment passed by the Rent Control Court viewing as under:
"12...........................................................Apart from this the legislation has taken care to insist upon the 2nd proviso of Section 12 (3), of the Tripura Buildings ( lease & Rent ) Control Act,1975, which provides that the Rent Control Court shall not pass an order of eviction if such tenant is dependent for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from any trade or business carried out in such building and there is no other suitable building available in the locality for such person to carry out such trade or business. From the evidence on record shows that the tenant appellant is doing his business in the suit premises since April, 1987. From the evidence on record it is also found that the tenant appellant is also running a ration shop at Pratapgarh, but from the evidence on record it is not clearly established that the CRP No.31 of 2021 Page - 6 of 18 tenant appellant is maintaining his livelihood mainly on the income derived from his ration shop because the tenant appellant has stated in his deposition that he is dependent for his livelihood mainly on the income derived from his business carried out in the rented premises since 1987. More-so, the landlord respondent did not produce any evidence either oral or documentary showing that there is any alternative accommodation available in the locality to carry out such trade or business by the tenant appellant or the tenant appellant is maintaining his livelihood mainly on the income derived from his ration shop, but the learned Court below did not consider these aspects in the impugned judgment. The learned Rent Control Court has decided on this point is that considering the comparative hardship, if an eviction order is passed the tenant opposite party can start his business by taking a rented house near the suit premises on the contrary if the eviction order is not passed then the landlord petitioners cannot enjoy their own land and would fact more hardship than the tenant opposite party. But for the purpose of enjoying the preferential right one cannot deprived the rights of other because the tenant appellant also maintain his livelihood out of the income of his business running in the rented premises since 1987 and from the evidence on record it is not clearly established that without the income derived from the business of the rented premises the tenant appellant also maintain his livelihood from the income of his ration shop. On the other-hand, from the evidence on record it is clearly established that apart from the landlord respondent No.1 and 2 the other respondents are staying in Delhi and Kolkata and from the evidence on record it is not clearly established that the other respondents are also in bonafide need of suit premises of for their own occupation or the occupation of their family members or to construct any common pathway to facilitate the partition for ingress and egress to their respective shares. It also appears that the landlord respondent No.1 and 2 are representing the other respondent by power of attorney dated 25.04.2011; 09.02.2011 and 11.02.2009 (Exbt. 2,3,&4) and the main contents of the recital of those power of attorney shows that the power has been given mainly to take possession of 1/5th shares of their joint property and to let out the existing building standing on the suit premises. More over it is an admitted fact that there are other tenants who are also enjoying their business in the same suit premises but the landlords did not take any steps to vacate those premises also to facilitate the partition. Apart from this a prolonged litigation is going on against the present appellant for eviction. Therefore when the landlord petitioners have suppressed the material facts as stated above They cannot claim that they require the possession of the suit premises in good faith. Therefore without considering the facts as to whether the landlords are required the possession of the suit premises bonafide or not the finding of the court below directing the tenant appellant to put the landlord respondents in possession of the rented premises removing all obstruction created by him within 60 days is absolutely based on no evidence and as such the same deserves interference. At the time of argument Mr. P.R. Barman, appearing for the landlord respondents are also relied upon the following decisions of the Hon'ble Apex court ---CRP No.31 of 2021
Page - 7 of 18
1.Raghunath G.Panhale by Lrs.vs.M/S Changanlal Sundarji and co. AIR 1999 SC 3864 - In the context of reasonable and bonafide requirement appearing in the Bombay Rent Control Act, 1997, held that the requirement or need is not fanciful or unreasonable. It cannot be mere desire. It must be something more than a mere desire but need not certainly a compelling or absolute or dire necessity. A reasonable and bonafide requirement is something in between a mere desire or wish on one hand and a compelling or dire or absolute necessity at the other end. It may be a need of in presenti or within reasonable proximity in the future.
2. Joginder Pal vs. Naval Kishore Behal (2002) 5 SCC 397 that:-
The rent control legislations are heavily loaded in favour of the tenants treating them as weaker sections of the society requiring legislative protection against exploitation and unscrupulous devices of greedy landlords. The legislative intent has to be respected by the courts while interpreting the laws. But it is being uncharitable to legislatures if they are attributed with an intention that they lean only in favour of the tenants and while being fair to the tenants, go to the extent of being unfair to the landlords. The legislature is fair to the tenants and to the landlords - both.
In Prativa Devi vs T.V. Krishnan 1995 (5) SCC 353 the Hon'ble Apex court held that the landlord is the best judge of his residential requirement. He has complete freedom in the matter. It is no concern of the courts to dictate to the landlord how and in what manner he should live or to prescribe for him a residential standard of their own.
It is obvious that cases can be decided only on the basis of pleadings and evidence on record. It is not disputed that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement but such requirement must be bonafide. The landlord has also cast a responsibility to prove his bonafide requirement by giving substantial evidence. Therefore, in my considered opinion the decision cited by the learned counsel for the respondents are not applicable considering the fact of the present case.
13. In view of the above discussion the judgment of the learned Rent Court below deserves interference and therefore the Judgment and order passed by the learned Rent Control Court below is hereby set aside. The appeal is hereby allowed. Considering all aspect, the parties are to bear their own cost."
[9] The original landlord petitioners being aggrieved by the judgment of the statutory Appellate Court preferred revision under section 22 of the Tripura Building (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1975 before the District Judge, West Tripura Judicial District, Agartala. It was registered as case No. R.C.C. (Revision) 05 of 2014 which was heard by the Additional District Judge (Court No.4), Agartala. The CRP No.31 of 2021 Page - 8 of 18 learned Additional District Judge was also of the view that the tenant would suffer greater hardship if eviction order is passed in the case. He agreed with the decision of the Appellate Authority and declined to interfere with the judgment rendered by the Appellate Court and finally dismissed the civil revision of the landlords by judgment dated 11.03.2020 viewing as under:
"10..........................................From the totality of the evidence and on reappreciation of the same Ld. Appellate Court answered and decided issue no.2 regarding the claim of bonafide requirement of suit-premises against the landlord and set aside the finding arrived at by the Trial Court.
The Appellate Court while deciding the issue relating to bonafide requirement of the suit-premises has come to a finding relying on Khatian(Ex-1), Power of Attorney (Ex-2,3 and 4) and on considering the pleadings and evidence of PW1 Smt. Manika Roy that suit-premises already partitioned by the landlords-petitioners among themselves as per family arrangement and accordingly they corrected the Khatian(Ex-
1) and that other landlords holder authorised PW1 to take their 1/5th Share in the properties left by their predecessor-in-interest on which suit-premises is situated and let out the building standing thereon but not for partition of the suit-premises. Landlords also suppressed the fact of mutual partition as per family arrangement in the eviction petition which indicates that they have not come to the Court in clean hands though the law requires the landlords to prove their bonafide need and for that too, approach in clean hand and that landlords-
petitioner did not adduce any evidence either oral or documentary to prove that suit-premises is required to make partition of the land of the landlords or that path way was a dire necessity as they have have no other passage to go to their residential premises and that suit-premises is urgently required for their occupation and ultimately Ld. Appellate Court reversed the Judgment of the Trial Court holding that finding of the Rent Control Court that suit-premises are bonafidely required by the Landlords Petitioners has no footing to stand on as the same was based on no evidence.
The Appellate Court has also recorded a clear findings that the need of the Respondent Opp. party is bonafide and that in the event of eviction the tenant would suffer greater hardship than landlords and also held that landlord did not try to adduce any evidence to show that there was other suitable accommodation available near the suit premises to carry out such trade or business by the Respondent or that he is maintaining his livelihood solely on the income derived from his Ration shop or that suit premises is required for the occupation of landlords or their family members, out of them one is staying in Delhi and other two are staying in their husbands house.
Ld. Counsel for the landlords-petitioner while assailing the said findings of the Appellate Court failed to satisfy this Court that CRP No.31 of 2021 Page - 9 of 18 those findings are perverse or without Jurisdiction on which finding of the Appellate Court can be inferred with. No such material has been placed to disagree with the findings of the Appellate Court.
The Judgment of the Ld. Appellate Court is perfectly sound and according to law and as such there is absolutely no occasion for this Court to interfere with the same.
11. In view of the above, I find no illegality or infirmity in the Judgment of the Ld. Appellate Authority and therefore, there is no merit in the present revision, as such, the same is hereby dismissed......................."
[10] After the revision petition was disposed of by the learned Additional District Judge, the landlord petitioners approached this court by filing WP(C) No.438 of 2020. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 23.03.2021 passed in WP(C)No.438 of 2020 held that the writ petition under section 226 of the Constitution would not be entertainable in the matter and accordingly allowed conversion of the petition and directed that the petition would be registered as CRP under Art.227 of the Constitution. The said order of the learned Single Judge is reproduced hereunder:
"Heard Mr. K Nath, learned counsel appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. A Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
After issuance of Rule by the order dated 10.09.2020, the writ petitioner has filed this application for converting the petition to a petition under Article 227 under Constitution of India.
Mr. Nath, learned counsel has submitted that though in the petition it has been mentioned as a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the Registry, for the fault of the petitioner, has registered the case as WP(C) No.438 of 2020. But the order which has been challenged cannot be adjudicated in a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution in view of the Apex court judgment under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in Radhey Shyam & Anr. Vs. Chhabi Nath & Ors. reported in (2015) 5 SCC 423.
Mr. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has raised no objection in such conversion and accordingly, it is directed that this petition shall be registered as CRP(ART.227).
The Registry is directed to make the necessary correction in cause title in view of the conversion as allowed by this Court. As this court understands, change in the case number would serve the purpose.CRP No.31 of 2021
Page - 10 of 18 By the next date of the corresponding petition the registry shall complete the necessary correction.
In terms of the above, this application stands allowed and disposed of."
[11] Main contention of the landlord petitioners, as stated, is that they require the vacant possession of the shop held by the tenant in their house for constructing an approach road to the remaining properties of the family so that an effective family partition can be brought about. Another ground of the landlord petitioners is that the building is more than 100 years old which require demolition and reconstruction for safety of the house inmates. The question which arises for consideration before this Court is whether the grounds projected by the landlords constitute the bona fide need of the landlord petitioners for the present purpose. [12] Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior advocate assisted by Mr. K. Nath, learned advocate appearing for the landlord petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Nandi, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party tenant. [13] In the course of his arguments, Mr. Roy Barman, learned senior advocate having relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Shiv Sarup Gupta vs. Dr. Mahesh Chand Gupta reported in (1999) 6 SCC 222 has contended that when a landlord shows a prima facie case that the requirement of the landlord is bona fide, a presumption that his requirement is bona fide has to be drawn. Counsel contends that as it has been viewed by the Apex Court that the bona fides of the requirement of a landlord can be decided by making an endeavour to see as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself. Counsel has referred to paragraph 20 of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court which reads as under:
"20. In Sarla Ahuja v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(1998) 8 SCC 119] this Court has held that the Rent Controller should not proceed on the assumption that the landlord‟s requirement is not bona fide. When the landlord shows a prima facie case a presumption that the CRP No.31 of 2021 Page - 11 of 18 requirement of the landlord is bona fide is available to be drawn. It is not for the tenant to dictate terms to the landlord as to how else he can adjust adjust himself without giving possession of the tenanted premises. While deciding the question of bona fides of the requirement of the landlord, it is quire unnecessary to make an endeavour as to how else the landlord could have adjusted himself."
[14] Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Yadvendra Arya & Anr. vs. Mukesh Kumar Gupta reported in (2008) 2 SCC 144 in which the Apex Court has held that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. Learned counsel has referred to paragraph 12 of the judgment which reads as under:
"12. In Ragavendra Kumar v. Prem Machinery & Co. [(2000) 1 SCC 679] it was held as follows:
"10........It is settled position of law that the landlord is the best judge of his requirement for residential or business purpose and he has got complete freedom in the matter. (See Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan, [(1996) 5 SCC 353]. In the case in hand the plaintiff landlord wanted eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for starting his business as it was suitable and it cannot be faulted."
[15] Counsel has also referred to paragraph 15 of the said judgment wherein the Apex Court has held that the term 'need' or 'requirement' of the landlord should not be artificially extended nor its language so unduly stretched or strained as to make it impossible or extremely difficult for the landlord to get a decree of eviction. Views of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 15 of the judgment is as under:
"15. In Bega Begum & Ors. v. Abdul Ahad Khan [(1979) 1 SCC 273)] this Court had occasion to deal in detail with the comparative hardship‟s aspect as follows:
"13. Moreover, Section 11(h) of the Act uses the words ‟reasonable requirement‟ which undoubtedly postulate that there must be an element of need as opposed to a mere desire or wish. The distinction between desire and need should doubtless be kept in mind but not so as to make even the genuine need as nothing but a desire as the High Court has done in this case. It seems to us that the connotation of the term CRP No.31 of 2021 Page - 12 of 18 ‟need‟ or ‟requirement‟ should not be artificially extended nor its language so unduly stretched or strained as to make it impossible or extremely difficult for the landlord to get a decree for eviction. Such a course would defeat the very purpose of the Act which affords the facility of eviction of the tenant to the landlord on certain specified grounds. This appears to us to be the general scheme of all the Rent Control Acts prevalent in other State in the country. This Court has considered the import of the word „requirement‟ and pointed out that it merely connotes that there should be an element of need.
* * *
20..........In this connection, our attention was drawn to the evidence led by the defendants that the main source of their income is the hotel business carried on by them in the premises and if they are thrown out they are not likely to get any alternative accommodation. The High Court has accepted the case of the defendants on this point, but does not appear to have considered the natural consequences which flow from a comparative assessment of the advantages and disadvantages of a landlord and the tenant if a decree for eviction follows. It is no doubt true that the tenant will have to be ousted from the house if a decree for eviction is passed, but such an event would happen whenever a decree for eviction is passed and was fully in contemplation of the legislature when Section 11(1)(h) of the Act was introduced in the Act. This by itself would not be valid ground for refusing the plaintiffs a decree for eviction.
* * *
27..............Thus, on a careful comparison and assessment of the relative advantages and disadvantages of the landlord and the tenant it seems to us that the scale is titled in favour of the plaintiffs. The inconvenience, loss and trouble resulting from denial of a decree for eviction in favour of the plaintiffs far outweigh the prejudice or the inconvenience which will be caused to the defendants. The High Court has unfortunately not weighed the evidence from this point of view."
[16] Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel has further relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Rishi Kumar Govil vs. Maqsoodan & Ors. reported in (2007) 4 SCC 465 wherein the Apex Court has reiterated that landlord is the best judge of his requirement and courts have no concern to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. The bona fide personal need is a question of fact and should not be normally interfered with. The views of the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph 19 of the judgment is as under:
CRP No.31 of 2021
Page - 13 of 18 "19. In Ragavendra Kumar v. Firm Prem Machinery and Co. [(2000) 1 SCC 679] it was held that it is the choice of the landlord to choose the place for the business which is most suitable for him. He has complete freedom in the matter. In Gaya Prasad v. Pradeep Srivastava [(2001) 2 SCC 604] it was held that the need of the landlord is to be seen on the date of application for release. In Prativa Devi v. T.V. Krishnan [(1996) 5 SCC 353] it was held that the landlord is the best Judge of his requirement and courts have no concern to dictate the landlord as to how and in what manner he should live. The bona fide personal need is a question of fact and should not be normally interfered with. The High Court noted that when the prescribed authority passed the order, son of the respondent landlady was 20 years old and the shop was sought to be released for the purpose of settling him in business. More than 20 years have elapsed and the son has become more than 40 years of age and she has not been able to establish him as she has still to get the possession of the shop and the litigation of the dispute is still subsisting. The licence for repairing firearms can only be obtained when there is a vacant shop available and in the absence of any vacant shop, licence cannot be obtained by him. Therefore, the High Court came to the conclusion concurring with that of the prescribed authority and the Appellate Authority that the need of the landlady is bona fide and genuine. Considering the factual findings recorded by the prescribed authority, the Appellate Authority and analysed by the High Court, there is no scope for any interference in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed. However, considering the period for which the premises in question was in the occupation of the appellant, time is granted till 31-12-2007 to vacate the premises subject to filing of an undertaking before the prescribed authority within a period of 2 weeks to deliver the vacant possession on or before the stipulated date. There will be no order as to costs."
[17] Counsel contends that the landlord petitioners have clearly established their bona fide need and the Rent Control Court having appreciated the case from the right perspective granted relief to them. Counsel submits that the Appellate Court as well as the Revisional Authority came to an erroneous conclusion with appreciation of evidence and facts and circumstances. Counsel, therefore, urges this Court to set aside the judgment of the Revisional Authority and restore the judgment of the Rent Control Court.
[18] Mr. A. Nandi, learned counsel vehemently opposes the contentions raised by the landlord petitioners. Mr. Nandi, learned counsel contends that even though the tenant has a fair price shop in his house at Pratapgarh, the number of CRP No.31 of 2021 Page - 14 of 18 consumers being limited, he cannot survive on the income generated from that fair price shop. Therefore, he cannot be evicted from the suit premises where he runs a business for maintaining his family over a long period of time particularly when the landlord petitioners have not been able to establish their bona fide need for eviction of the tenant therefrom. Mr. Nandi, learned counsel contends that while exercising revisional powers in a case of the present nature, the High Court cannot reassess and reappreciate evidence since the High Court has no appellate jurisdiction in this matter. In support of his contention, Mr. Nandi, learned counsel has relied on the judgment dated 26.06.2020 arising out of SLP(C) No.20133 of 2018 [Mohd. Inam vs. Sanjay Kumar Singhal & Ors.]. Counsel has relied on paragraph 32 of the judgment which reads as under:
"32. It is a well settled principle of law, that in the guise of exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court cannot convert itself into a court of appeal. It is equally well settled, that the supervisory jurisdiction extends to keeping the subordinate tribunals within the limits of their authority and seeing that they obey the law. It has been held, that though the powers under Article 227 are wide, they must be exercised sparingly and only to keep subordinate courts and Tribunals within the bounds of their authority and not to correct mere errors. Reliance in this respect can be placed on a catena of judgments of this Court including the ones in Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde & Ors. vs. Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [(1960) 1 SCR 890], Bathutmal Raichand Oswal vs. Laxmibai R.Tarta & Anr. [(1975) 1 SCC 858], M/s India Pipe Fitting Co. vs. Fakruddin M. A. Baker & Anr. [(1977) 4 SCC 587], Ganpat Ladha v. Sashikant Vishnu Shinde[(1978) 2 SCC 573], Mrs. Labhkuwar Bhagwani Shaha & Ors. vs. Janardhan Mahadeo Kalan & Anr. [(1982) 3 SCC 514], Chandavarkar Sita Ratna Rao vs. Ashalata S. Guram [(1986) 4 SCC 447], Venkatlal G. Pittie and another vs. Bright Bros (Pvt.) Ltd. [(1987) 3 SCC 558], State of Maharashtra vs. Milind & Ors. [(2001) 1 SCC 4], State Through Special Cell, New Delhi vs. Navjot Sandhu Alias Afshan Guru and Others [(2003) 6 SCC 641], Ranjeet Singh vs. Ravi Prakash19, Shamshad Ahmad & Ors. vs. Tilak Raj Bajaj (Deceased) Through LRs. and others [(2008) 9 SCC 1], Celina Coelho Pereira (Ms.) and others vs. Ulhas Mahabaleshwar Kholkar and others [(2010) 1 SCC 217]."CRP No.31 of 2021
Page - 15 of 18 [19] Mr. Nandi, learned counsel has also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Mohammad Yunus vs. Mohd. Mustaqim reported in 1984 AIR(SC) 38 in support of his contention that the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited to seeing that an inferior court or tribunal functions within the limits of its authority. Counsel has relied on paragraph 7 of the judgment which reads as under:
"7. The supervisory jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited "to seeing that an inferior Court or Tribunal functions within the limits of its authority", and not to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, much less an error of law. In this case there was, in our opinion, no error of law much less an error apparent on the face of the record. There was no failure on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge to exercise jurisdiction nor did he act in disregard of principles of natural justice. Nor was the procedure adopted by him not in consonance with the procedure established by law. In exercising the supervisory power under Art.227, the High Court does not act as an Appellate Court or Tribunal. It will not review or reweigh the evidence upon which the determination of the inferior Court or Tribunal purports to be based or to correct errors of law in the decision."
[20] On this issue, Mr. Nandi, learned counsel has also referred to a decision dated 22.08.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.6594 of 2019[Daya Rani & Anr. vs. Shabbir Ahmed] arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s)28859/2018 wherein the Apex Court in paragraph 14 of the judgment has held as under:
"14. The law is thus well settled that while exercising revisional power, the High Court can not reappreciate the evidence on record: both oral or documentary. Further the consideration while exercising revisional jurisdiction is confined to find out whether the findings of fact rendered by the Court or Authority below were according to law and did not suffer from any error of law."
[21] The revisional jurisdiction of the High Court in similar matters was further dealt with by the Apex Court in Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78 which has been CRP No.31 of 2021 Page - 16 of 18 referred by Mr. Nandi, learned counsel of the tenant. Counsel has relied on paragraph 35 of the judgment which reads as under:
"35. In Shiv Sarup Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222], the observations of this Court with reference to revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under the Delhi Rent Control Act that the High Court, on the touchstone of "whether it is according to law" and for that limited purpose, may enter into reappraisal of evidence must be understood in the context of its observations made preceding such observation that the High Court cannot enter into appreciation or reappreciation of evidence merely because it is inclined to take a different view of the facts as if it were a court of facts and the observations following such observation that the evidence is examined by the High Court to find out whether court/authority below has ignored the evidence or proceeded on a wrong premise of law or derived such conclusion from the established facts which betray lack of reasons and/or objectivity which renders the finding not according to law. Shiv Sarup Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222] also does not lay down the proposition of law that in its revisional jurisdiction under the Rent Control Act, the High Court can rehear on facts or reappreciate the evidence to come to the conclusion different from that of the trial court or the appellate court because it has a different view on appreciation of evidence. Shiv Sarup Gupta [(1999) 6 SCC 222] must also be understood in the context we have explained Ram Dass [(1988) 3 SCC 131]."
[22] Considered the submissions of learned counsel representing the parties in the light of the judgments referred by them. Perused the entire record. [23] It is uncontroverted that the shop run by the tenant in the suit premises is not his only source of income. He also owns a fair price shop in his house at Pratapgarh. Therefore, there is no reasonable apprehension that the tenant is going to loose his source of livelihood if he is evicted from the suit premises. The landlord petitioners on the other hand came with a plea that they genuinely need eviction of the tenant from the suit premises for constructing an approach road to the remaining properties of the family so that an effective family partition can be brought about. The tenant in his evidence before the trial court had categorically admitted in his cross-examination that even after expiry of the lease agreement he was retaining the rented premises. He also admitted that he was proved to be a defaulter in payment of rent and the court directed him to make CRP No.31 of 2021 Page - 17 of 18 payment of Rs.19,096/- as outstanding rent. He admitted that he had a ration shop in his house at Pratapgarh where he lives with his mother, wife and children. [24] Manika Roy, one of the landlord petitioners also stated in her evidence that the tenant opposite party became a defaulter in paying rent for which they had to file a case for recovery of the arrear rent and the tenant was directed to pay Rs.19,000/- as arrear rent. Smt. Roy as PW-1 also told the court that he was residing in the suit premises along with her mother. His brother was staying in Delhi and two other sisters were living along with their husbands at Agartala. [25] The circumstances stated above clearly indicate that the tenant is not only defaulting in payment of rent, he despite having fair price shop in his own house is retaining the rented accommodation in the suit premises against the will of the landlord petitioners. The landlord petitioners, on the other hand, have come out with a genuine plea of bona fide need. Evidently, there are many co-sharers of the property and the room which has been rented to the opposite party tenant being on the pathway, the same should be demolished for amicable partition of the suit property so that the co-sharers may enjoy their respective share of the property with easements. In view of these circumstances and the evidence on record, I find no illegality in the judgment rendered by the Rent Control Court. The statutory Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority (the Additional District Judge) committed error in denying the relief to the landlord petitioners. Resultantly, the judgment of the Rent Control Court [Court of the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Court No.1 at Agartala] is restored and the judgments passed by the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority are set aside. Consequently, this revision petition stands allowed.
CRP No.31 of 2021
Page - 18 of 18 [26] The tenant namely, Pradip Kr. Ghosh is directed to vacate the suit premises after paying all arrears of rent, if any, to the landlord petitioners within a period of 2(two) months from today.
[27] In terms of the above, the petition stands disposed of. Interim order(s), if any, shall stand vacated. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
JUDGE Rudradeep CRP No.31 of 2021