Utpalendu Bikas Saha, J.

1. The instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed by the petitioner, admittedly a tenant under the respondent, challenging the order dated 11.4.2012 passed by the learned Rent Control Revisional Authority, (the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala), in case No. RCC (revision) No. 04 of 2010, whereby and whereunder, the revision application filed by the petitioner, against the judgment and order, dated 7.7.2010, passed by the appellate Court of the Rent Control Cases (Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No. 2, West Tripura, Agartala), in RCC (Appeal) No. 6 of 2008 affirming the judgment and order dated 3.9.2008 passed by the Rent Control Court, Agartala, West Tripura in RCC case No. 14 of 2006 directing the petitioner to put the respondent land lord in vacant possession of the premises in question, was rejected. Heard Mr. D.R. Choudhury, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner tenant as well as Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P. Sen, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-land lord.

2. As agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, the instant revision petition is taken up for final disposal at the admission stage.

3. The facts needed to be discussed, in a nut shell, are as follows:

The respondent-landlord instituted a proceeding bearing No. RCC 14 of 2006 in the Rent Control Court, Agartala, West Tripura impleading the present petitioner as O.P. Tenant under Section 12(3) of Tripura Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1975 (for short hereinafter referred to as 'the Act, 1975') with a prayer for eviction of the petitioner tenant from the tenanted premises owned by the landlord respondent on the ground that the respondent-landlord was running transport business, but in the said business, he was facing loss for the last few years. So he was thinking to start a fixed business to save himself and others dependent on him from starvation. Accordingly, he approached his mother and brother-in-law to purchase the tenanted premises from them who were the joint owners of the said premises, on which they also agreed to sell the same to him.

4. On purchase of the said tenanted premises on 4.2.2005 and 4.5.2005 by two sale deeds, he issued notice to the petitioner tenant on 3.8.2005 expressing his bona fide need to start his business therein, as he has no alternative scope to maintain his family. The petitioner tenant who was the O.P. in the aforesaid rent control case replied to the said notice on 2.5.2006 where he did not say anything regarding his intention for vacating the premises in question. Ultimately, the respondent land lord filed the aforesaid rent control case under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1975. The petitioner tenant contested the aforesaid case wherein he denied the bona fide need of the respondent landlord.

5. The learned Rent Control Court examined the two witnesses- the respondent landlord as P.W. 1 and his brother as P.W. 2 as well as the petitioner-tenant as O.P.W. 1.

6. Upon consideration of the evidence of the aforesaid witnesses and other relevant records, the learned Rent Control Court allowed the petition filed by the respondent landlord on the ground that the petitioner tenant-O.P. has an option by taking the vacant shop which is on the eastern side of the suit premise on rental basis for which the O.P. could have approached P.W. 2 to run his business if his only means of livelihood is the said grocery shop, but the O.P. has not exercised that option, nor has he given any reason as to why he had not opted for the option available to him.

7. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the Rent Control Court, the petitioner tenant O.P. preferred an appeal under Section 20 of the Said Act, 1975 before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, (senior division), Court No. 1, West Tripura, Agartala, i.e., the Appellate Authority of the Rent Control Cases. Later on, the said case was transferred to the Civil Judge (