JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) THIS Rule was obtained
by in the landlord of a thika tenant whose
application under section 9 of the
calcutta Thika Tenancy Act, 1949 was
allowed by the Thika Controller, but
on appeal the said order was set aside
and the matter was remanded back to
the Thika Controller. The rule was
obtained on an application made under
section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure paying a court fee of Rs. 5/- only. When the attention of Mr. Guha,
learned advocate for the petitioner,
was drawn to this fact, he agreed to
put in the balance amount of court
fees of Rs. 15/- in course of this day
after converting the application with
the leave of the court, into one under
article 227 of the Constitution.
(2.) THE opposite party was a thika
tenant under the petitioner in respect
of the disputed holding. As the opposite party failed to pay rent from
january, 1974 and also Municipal
taxes from the first quarter of 1968-1969, the petitioner filed an application
under section 9 of the Act for permission to enter the holding on the ground
that the thika tenant had abandoned
the holding. Notices were duly published as contemplated under section 9 of
the Act and thereafter the matter was
taken up by the Thika Controller who
by his order dated 5tn June, 1975
granted permission to the petitioner
to re-enter the disputed holding after
treating the same to be abandoned by
the opposite party. Against this order
the opposite-party preferred a miscellaneous appeal which was heard by the
additional District Judge, 11th court,
alipore. From certain materials produced before him the learned Judge
took the view that as the address of
the opposite-party was known to the
petitioner, the petitioner ought to have
served the notice under section-9 of
the Act upon the opposite party at her
address. He further took the view that
from certain rent receipts filed by the
opposite party which showed that the
rent from January 1972 to December
1972 was paid after more than one
and half years, it was clear that from
non-payment of rent from January
1974 it cannot be inferred that the
thika tenant had abandoned the holding. In my view, the learned Judge
was not correct in his approach to the
case. Section 9 requires the landlord to
file the prescribed notice showing that
he intends to treat the holding as
abandoned. The copies of the notice
which the landlord is required to file
were duly filed in this case before the
controller and the same were duly
published by the Controller as required
under section-9 read with rule 6 of the
rules framed under the Act. It is immaterial whether the landlord was
aware of the address of the thika tenant or not. The section does not require
the landlord to pursue his tenant and
serve a notice upon him as is required
in the case of service of a notice to quit
upon a tenant. That being so, if the
landlord fulfilled the requirement of
section-9, it is enough for his purpose. Secondly, if the tenant is not actually
residing in the holding in question
and he makes no arrangement for
payment of rent in proper time, it is
sufficient to constitute abandonment
in the eye of law. That being so, the
learned Judge in the lower appellate
court was not justified in remanding
the matter back to the Thika Controller on the basis of materials
produced before him at the appellate stage.
(3.) I therefore make this rule
absolute, set aside the order of the
learned Additional District Judge and
restore that of the Thika Controller. In view of the fact that the petitioner
even after the passing of the appellate order made an offer to settle the
matter amicably with the opposite-party as would appear from annexure X (ii) to the affidavit-in-opposition
filed on behalf of the opposite party,
but the same was not accepted by the
opposite party, I direct that the opposite party will pay the costs thrown
away by the petitioner in this Rule,
the hearing fee being assessed at five
fold mohurs. Mr. Guha, learned Advocate for
the petitioner is permitted to put in the
deficit court fee of Rs. 15/- and to amend
the cause title of the application in
course of this day.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.