Landlord's bona fide need for property doesn’t require dire necessity; tenant's livelihood claims must prove attempts for alternative accommodations.

JUDGMENT

1. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing & setting aside the Judgment & Order dated 11.02.2022, passed by the Ld. District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala (Rent Control Revisional Authority) in case no. RCC (Revision) 02/2020, dismissing the said revision case affirming the Judgment & Order of dismissal of the Appeal No. 04/2019, granting the order of eviction dated 15.06.2020 against the Tenant Petitioner herein passed by the Ld. Rent Control Appellate Authority (Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Court no. 2), Agartala, West Tripura, in case no. RCC 01/2007.

2. This CRP is filed against the concurrent findings against the order 02.09.2019 of the rent control court which is confirmed by the lower appellate court vide order dated 15.06.2020. For the sake of brevity the parties are referred to as in the cause title of RCC 01 of 2007. The land-lord/petitioner's case in brief is that the absolute owner of the rented premises consisting two storied building and the tenant-OP is the monthly tenant of the Land-Lord/petitioner of that rented premises and both of them executed one unregistered agreement on 20.06.2002 for six years and the monthly rent was at Rs. 550/- to be payable by the tenant-OP by the first week of every month and would take the receipt copy of the rent from the Land-Lord/petitioner and it was also decided that an electric sub-meter would be installed by the tenant-OP at his own cost and the tenant-OP would pay the electric charges according to the reading of sub-meter to the Land-Lord/petitioner by the first week of every month for payment to the authority. Then the tenant-OP took the possession of the rented premises on 20.06.2002 but he never paid the monthly rent and electric charges till 20.06.2006 and accordingly, on 19.09.2006 a registered letter with A/D was served upon the tenant-OP in which it was demanded that the tenant-OP willfully and neglectfully did not pay any rent to the Land-Lord/petitioner and hence, he became a defaulter in payment of monthly rent and electric bill (except the period from 02.01.2005 to 16.09.2006) for which he was liable to pay interest on the arrear of rent and the electric charges @ 15% per annum and that letter was received by the tenant-OP on 25.09.2006. But the tenant-OP did not hand over the rented premises to the Land-Lord/petitioner.

3. The tenant-OP is the relative of the Land-Lord/petitioner but he did not make any payment of the rent and the tenant-OP, on each and every occasion, assured the Land-Lord/petitioner that he would pay the arrear of rent and electric charges but though he never paid those rents and charges, the Land-Lord/petitioner out of sympathy allowed the tenant-OP to stay there but on 24.08.2006, in front of public, the tenant-OP threatened him with dire consequences if further rent was sought from him and accordingly, the Land-Lord/petitioner, out of fear, lodged one G.D. entry with the West Tripura P/S on 26.08.2006.

4. On 09.10.2006, the tenant-OP replied the demand letter dated 18.09.2006 in which he admitted that he is a monthly tenant of the Land-Lord/petitioner but he is not a defaulter of payment of rent and as such he is not liable to be evicted. It is specifically mentioned in the application that as the Tenant-OP is a willful defaulter of payment of rent and the rented room is needed for the family business by the Land-Lord/petitioner's son and for using the premises as a garage for his vehicle, but as the tenant-OP has not been handing over the rented premises to the Land-Lord/petitioner despite of several requests, Land-Lord/petitioner has filed this application