The bonafide need for eviction must be determined by the landlord, and the burden of proving non-availability of alternative accommodation lies with the tenant.

1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the judgment and order dated 14.06.2016 delivered in RCC (Revision) 5 of 2013 on affirmance of the judgment and order dated 11.09.2013 delivered in RCC (A) No.1 of 2013 by the Rent Control Appellate Authority [the civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.1] West Tripura, Agartala. By the said judgment dated 11.09.2013 the Rent Control Appellate Authority reversed the judgment and order of eviction dated 05.01.2013 delivered in RCC 33 of 2005 by the Rent Control Court [the court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.1], Agartala, West Tripura.

2. A petition under Section 12(2)(b)(3) of the Tripura Buildings (Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1995, in short the RCC Act for eviction of the tenant, the respondent herein, from the proceeding premise was instituted by the original petitioner who has been substituted by the present petitioners [on his death] for getting the vacant possession on two grounds viz: (i) for default of payment of rent and (ii) for bonafide need of the petitioners. In addition thereto, relief for deposit of the rent, with arrear and interest @ 6%, was sought by the petitioners.

3. Briefly stated, the petitioners have averred that the respondent was inducted in the proceeding premises on the basis of an unregistered deed for a period of three years with effect from 01.07.1999 to 13.06.2002 on monthly rent of Rs.900/- per month. A sum of Rs.30,000/- was however deposited by the respondent to the original landlord namely Shib Sankar Dey as security on condition that on expiry of the ‘lease period’ [be read as the tenancy period] the respondent will vacate the suit premise and the landlord will return the security deposit. But after expiry of the tenancy period since the respondent did not hand over the proceeding premise the original landlord repeatedly requested him to vacate the premise as his daughter was unemployed and she would start a business in that premise. That apart, the original landlord was scheduled to retire on 01.08.1991. Thus he had plan to utilise the proceeding premise by doing the business. The respondent assured to vacate the same, but ultimately did not vacate. Even he did not pay any rent for continuance in the tenancy.

4. Being vexed by the conduct of the respondent, the notice to vacate the proceeding premise was issued on 06.10.2004 providing a period of one month for vacating the premise. At the time of filing this petition, the respondent was defaulter of non-payment of a sum of Rs.31,500/- for 35 (thirty five) months. Later on, after death of the original landlord petitioner, the petitioners herein, amended the petition and inserted some additional facts that on the death of the original landlord. The petitioners have inserted that their right on the proceeding premise is undisputed as they have purchased the share of the brother of the original landlord, namely Narayan Chandra Dey, by dint of the registered sale deed dated 04.12.2010.

5. The respondent has contested the suit by filing the written objection on denying all the grounds and contending that the case of the original landlord is not maintainable for the reason that initially on 24.10.1981, the respondent was inducted as the monthly tenant on payment of Rs.50/- per month. At that time, Narayan Chandra Dey used to collect the rent and the respondent paid the full rent till 31.05.1986 to Narayan Chandra Dey and thereafter the rent was increased to Rs.100/- with effect from 04.06.1986 to 30.10.1992. The original landlord petitioner [since deceased] and Narayan Chandra Dey had further increased the rent and collected the rent through the original landlord petitioner. It has been also claimed by the respondent that an advance of Rs.70,000/- was deposited by him in terms of the agreement. A sum of Rs.400/- was supposed to be adjusted from the said sum of Rs.70,000/- as deposited by the respondent herein. However, the respondent used to