Important point
In view of divergency of opinion on the question whether an appeal can be preferred by a tenant under Section 20 of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, without making payment or deposit of admitted arrears of rent, the appeal is to be posted before a larger Bench.

Headnote:Rent Control-Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975-Sections 12, 13 and 20-Appeal-Maintainability on failure to deposit admitted arrears of rent-Respondent 1 filed a petition for eviction u/s 12 of the Act on grounds of bonafide requirement and default in payment of rent-Rent Control Court found that appellants were defaulters in payment of rent and directed appellants to hand over possession of building to respondent 1-Appeal u/s 20 filed by tenants-Dismissed holding that appellants failed to deposit arrears of rent as directed by Rent Control Court-On appeal, High Court also held that no appeal against the order made u/s 12 is competent and maintainable u/s 20 of the Act unless provision of Section 13(1) of the Act is complied with-Whether an appeal can be preferred u/s 20 of the Act without making payment or depositing all arrears of rent-(No, as per Shivaraj V. Patil, J.)-(Yes, as per D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.)-Civil Appeal is to be posted before a larger Bench in view of divergency of opinion.
       Held : As per Shivaraj V. Patil, J.
       Payment or deposit of arrears of admitted rent before preferring an appeal under Section 20 is a statutory requirement as expressly stated in compulsive language under Section 13(1) of the Act and no discretion is left to the appellate authority to say that an appeal could be preferred without satisfying pre-condition of deposit or payment of admitted arrears of rent. Under Section 20(1)(b) any person aggrieved by an order passed by the Rent Control Court may within 30 days prefer an appeal. Under Section 20(2) on such appeal being preferred, the appellate authority may order stay of further proceedings. The appeal could be preferred only on payment or deposit of arrears of admitted rent. It also follows that no effective order of stay of further proceedings can be passed by the appellate authority unless an appeal is preferred after such payment or deposit of admitted arrears of rent. This is also a factor to indicate that payment or deposit of arrears of admitted rent is essential before preferring an appeal. It is to command a tenant to pay or deposit arrears of admitted rent to protect the interest of the landlord as in other matters certain provisions are made to protect the interest of the tenant. Remedy of appeal is a creation of statute and it is open to the legislature to provide for an appeal subject to certain conditions. Insistence of payment or depositing of arrears of rent admitted as stated in Section 13(1) of the Act cannot be diluted or defeated merely on the ground of hardship to a tenant more so when tenant already had one opportunity before the Rent Control Court in regard to making payment or depositing arrears of rent. Perhaps it was considered unreasonable or unnecessary to provide again opportunity before Appellate Authority to a tenant that too to pay or deposit admitted arrears of rent. (Para 11)
        In view of the discussion made and reasons stated, the question set out above is answered in the negative meaning thereby payment or deposit of all arrears of rent admitted is mandatory before preferring an appeal by a tenant under Section 20 of the Act. (Para 21)
       As per D.M. Dharmadhikari, J.
       A tenant can file or present a memo of appeal within the prescribed period of thirty days excluding the time for obtaining certified copy of the order in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 20 but until and unless he seeks an order from the appellate authority in accordance with sub-section (2) of Section 13 and makes deposit of all arrears of rent and continues to pay future rent in the manner and within the time directed by the appellate authority, he would not be entitled to prosecute the appeal and obtain any interim or final relief against the order of the Rent Control Court as is contemplated in sub-sections (2) & (3) respectively of the said Section. (Para 57)
       In view of divergency of opinion on the question whether an appeal can be preferred by a tenant under Section 20 of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975 (for short, “the Act”) without making payment or deposit of admitted arrears of rent, as stated in Section 13(1) of the Act, the civil appeal is to be posted before a larger Bench, after obtaining the order of the Hon’ble Chief Justice. (Para 59)

Judgment

Shivaraj V. Patil, J.-Few facts, which are considered necessary and relevant for disposal of this appeal, in short and substance, are the following:

2. The respondent No.1 filed a petition for eviction under Section 12 of The Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975 (for short ‘the Act’) on the grounds of bona fide requirement and default in payment of rent. The Rent Control Court held that the claim of bona fide requirement was not proved. However, it found that the appellants were defaulters in payment of rent and directed the appellants to hand over the possession of the building in question to the respondent No.1. The appellants filed R.C.C. Appeal 4/1995 under Section 20 of the Act before the Civil Judge (Senior Division), West Tripura against the said order of the Rent Control Court. The learned Civil Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the appeal holding that the appellants failed to deposit the arrears of rent as directed by the Rent Control Court and the appeal filed by them without making deposit of arrears of rent was not maintainable in view of Section 13(1) of the Act. Thereafter, the appellants filed revision petition in the court of the District Judge, Tripura, assailing the order passed by the learned Civil Judge in appeal. The learned District Judge allowed the revision petition, set aside the order of the Civil Judge in appeal and remanded the case to the appellate court for considering the petition for adducing additional evidence and for deciding the appeal afresh. The respondent No.1, aggrieved by this order passed in the revision petition, filed a petition as Civil Rule No. 466 of 1997 under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the Gauhati High Court. A learned single Judge of the High Court, after hearing the parties, finding some conflict in the decisions of this Court in Chinnamma vs. Gopalan and others1 and of Division Bench of the High Court in Binapani Roy & two others vs. State of Tripura and two others2, felt that the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court in Binapani Roy case required reconsideration by a larger bench to decide the following question :-

“Whether in view of Section 13 of the Act, 1975, the appellate Court is prohibited from entertaining an appeal unless the tenant has paid or pays to the landlord or deposit with the Rent Control Court or the appellant authority, as the case may be, all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due in respect of the building up to the date of payment of deposit and continue to pay or deposit any rent which may subsequently become due in respect of the building until termination of the proceedings before the Rent Control Court or the appellate authority, as the case may be?”

The Division Bench of the High Court, after hearing the parties, concluded that the judgment of the Division Bench in Binapani Roy case (aforementioned) did not require any reconsideration and no reference to a larger Bench was called for. It also held that no appeal against the order made under Section 12 of the Act is competent and maintainable under Section 20 of the Act unless provision of Section 13(1) of the Act is complied with; that fulfillment of the requirement of Section 13(1) is a sine qua non for preferring appeal under Section 20. Hence, aggrieved by the same, the appellant-tenants have assailed the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court in this appeal.

3. The learned Senior counsel for the appellants contended that the High Court was not right and justified in taking a technical view in the matter; as in the case of contesting the proceedings before the Rent Controller, opportunity could be given by the appellate court for making payment of admitted rent due or depositing before the appeal is heard; saying that appeal itself could not be preferred without paying or depositing admitted arrears of rent may not be correct in view of Section 13(3) of the Act; if Section 13 is read as a whole, it will

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 254

Important pointIn view of divergency of opinion on the question whether an appeal can be preferred by a tenant under Section 20 of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, without making payment or deposit of admitted arrears of rent, the appeal is to be posted before a larger Bench.

Cases Referred (6)

Important point
In view of divergency of opinion on the question whether an appeal can be preferred by a tenant under Section 20 of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, without making payment or deposit of admitted arrears of rent, the appeal is to be posted before a larger Bench.