- (1.) I have heard Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners and Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent.
(2.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the dismissal order dated 21.02.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala as Rent Control Revisional Authority in RCC(Revision) Case No. 05 of 2009, whereby the revision application, filed against the appellate order dated 03.11.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge (senior Division) No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala as Rent Control Appellate Authority in RCC Appeal No. 02 of 2008 affirming the original order dated 13.03.2008 passed by the learned Rent Control Court, Agartala, West Tripura in RCC Case No. 16 of 2005 directing the tenant -Petitioners to put the landlord -Respondent in possession of the demised premises.
(3.) THE facts, leading to the filing of this petition, may be stated, in a nutshell, as follows: The landlord -Respondent instituted a proceeding bearing RCC Case No. 16 of 2005 in the Court of Rent Control, P/3 Agartala, West Tripura, as Petitioner(landlord -Respondent herein) impleading the present Petitioners as Defendants as per provision of Section 12(2)(b) and 12(3) of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975, for a direction to put the landlord Respondent in possession of the demised premises described in the Schedule of the original application, on the ground of nonpayment of rent as well as bone fide requirement. The landlord Respondent stated that he used to run a small 'pan' shop including that of some other articles in front of the State Bank of India, Melarmath, Agartala and thus with the meager income from that shop he used to maintain his family consisting of four members. Since the land, in which the 'pan' shop was situated, belonged to Agartala Municipal Council, the landlord -Respondent was asked to vacate the 'pan' shop for construction of drain, for which he was urgently in need of rented premises for starting his own business. Subsequently, the landlord -Respondent was evicted from the said pan shop; thereby he lost his only source of income. The case of the tenant -Petitioners before the Rent Control Court was that they were running a business of grocery goods in the rented premises and it was the only source of their livelihood. Therefore, if they were evicted from the rented premises, they would be deprived of their bread and butter. On the basis of the appreciation of the evidence on record and in view of the law points discussed, the learned Trial P/4 Court ordered that the landlord -Respondent had bona fide requirement of the rented premises and, therefore, the tenant Petitioners were directed to hand over the vacant possession of the rented premises to the landlord -Respondent in good condition within a period of 45 days from the date of order.;