Important pointAn appeal under Section 20 of Tripura Rent Control Act may be filed or presented without payment to landlord or deposit with appellate authority all arrears of rent admitted by tenant to be due but it will be open to appellate authority not to proceed with hearing of appeal or to pass interim order until appellant had paid or deposited all arrears.

Headnote:Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975—Sections 13 and 20—Whether an appeal preferred under Section 20 of the Act without payment to landlord or deposit with the appellate Court all arrears of rent admitted by tenant to be due was not maintainable and liable to be rejected on that ground alone?—No—Eviction order by Rent Control Court holding appellant tenant to be a defaulter—Appeal dismissed by Civil Judge (Senior Division) only on ground that appellant had failed to deposit arrears of rent as directed by Rent Control Court—Impugned order was rightly set aside in revision.
Held : It is necessary to give full meaning and effect to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 13 of the Act. The full play and effect cannot be given to sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 13 of the Act if the expression “prefer an appeal” is interpreted to mean that the payment to the landlord or deposit with the Rent Control Court of all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due is a pre-condition for filing a memorandum of appeal. However, if such payment or deposit of arrears of admitted rent is not held to be a pre-condition for mere filing or presentation of memorandum of appeal, it will be possible for the appellate authority to give full effect to sub-sections (2) & (3) of Section 13 of the Act. (Para 8)
The tenant, on account of some personal difficulty or problem may not be in a position to deposit all arrears of rent admitted by him to be due within the period of thirty days. In such an event, he may be precluded from challenging the order of Rent Control Court as the memorandum of appeal filed by him without making payment or deposit of arrears of rent would be liable to be rejected straightaway. We are, therefore, of the opinion that on a conjoint reading of all the provisions of the Act and giving a fair and reasonable interpretation thereto an appeal under Section 20 of the Act may be filed or presented without payment to the landlord or deposit with the appellate authority all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due and it cannot be held to be incompetent. However, it will be open to the appellate authority not to proceed with the hearing of the appeal or to pass any interim order in favour of the appellant - tenant until he has paid or deposited all arrears of rent admitted by him to be due, and for such purposes the appellate authority shall have all the powers under sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 13 of the Act. The view taken by the appellate authority that as the appellant (tenant) had not paid or deposited all arrears of rent admitted by him to be due the appeal filed was him as incompetent is, therefore, clearly unsustainable in law and the revisional authority rightly set aside the said order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by the appellate authority. (Paras 11 & 12)

Judgment

G.P. Mathur, J.—In view of difference of opinion between two learned Judges, the present appeal was placed for hearing before this larger Bench and the issue involved is whether an appeal preferred under Section 20 of the Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) without payment to the landlord or deposit with the appellate court all arrears of rent admitted by the tenant to be due is not maintainable and is liable to be rejected on that ground alone.

2. Respondent No. 1 - Gouranga Chandra Dey filed an eviction petition under Section 12 of the Act on the ground of bona fide requirement and also default in payment of rent. The appellant-tenant contested the petition taking various pleas. The Rent Control Court, after appraisal of evidence on record, recorded a finding that the plea raised by the landlord regarding bona fide requirement of the premises was not established, but the appellants were defaulters in payment of rent and accordingly passed an order directing their eviction and for handing over possession of the premises in question to respondent No. 1. The appellants preferred an appeal against the decision of the Rent Control Court, but the same was dismissed by Civil Judge (Senior Division), West Tripura, on the ground that as the appellants had failed to deposit the arrears of rent as directed by the Rent Control Court, the appeal preferred by them was not maintainable in view of Section 13(1) of the Act. Thereafter the appellants preferred a Revision Petition before the District Judge which was allowed and the order of Civil Judge (Senior Division) was set aside and the appeal was remanded for consideration on merits. Feeling aggrieved, respondent No. 1 filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Gauhati High Court. The learned Single Judge who heard the petition was of the opinion that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Chinnamma vs. Gopalan and others 1995(6) SCC 491 an earlier Division Bench decision of Gauhati High Court in Binapani Roy & Ors. vs. State of Tripura and others 1994(1) GLR 98 required reconsideration by a larger Bench. Thereafter the petition was heard by a Division Bench which came to the conclusion that the decision of this Court in Channamma vs. Gopalan and others (supra) did not touch the controversy in dispute and accordingly the earlier decision rendered by the said High Court in Binapani Roy’s case (supra) did not require reconsideration. It was further held that an appeal against an order under Section 12 of the Act was not competent unless the provisions of Section 13(1) of the Act were complied with and, accordingly, the reference to the larger Bench made by the learned Single Judge was declined leaving the matter to be heard on merits by the learned Single Judge.

3. The appellants filed a Special Leave Petition against the decision of the High Court which, after grant of leave, was heard by a bench of two learned Judges. Shivaraj V. Patil, J. held that in view of Section 13(1) of the Act, before a tenant prefers an appeal under Section 20 against an order of eviction made against him under Section 12 of the Act, he must either pay to the landlord or deposit with the Rent Control Court all arrears of rent in view of explicit language used in Section 13(1) of the Act. However, D.M. Dharmadhikari, J. held that a tenant can file or present a memorandum of appeal in accordance with sub-section (1) of Section 20 of the Act, 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.

4. In order