Landlords must substantiate bona fide need for occupancy. Statutory provisions mandate proving availability of alternatives for tenants, with courts constrained in reconsidering factual findings.

JUDGMENT AND ORDER

1. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment dated 26.02.2020 passed by the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala in RCC(Revision) 03 of 2019 whereby the said revisional court in exercise of its power as conferred by Section-22 of the Tripura Buildings(Lease & Rent Control) Act, 1975 has reserved the judgment and order dated 23.11.2018 passed by the Rent Control Court in RCC Case No.22 of 2017 and the judgment and order dated 06.07.2019 passed in RCC Appeal No.2 of 2019 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala observing that the landlords who filed the petition for eviction of the respondent herein, being RCC Case No.22 of 2017, are held not entitled to get the relief of eviction of the respondent from the suit premises, as prayed. The judgment and order of the Rent Control Court dated 23.11.2017 delivered in RCC No.22 of 2017 was affirmed by the appellate court [the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.2, West Tripura, Agartala] by the judgment dated 06.07.2019 in RCC Appeal No.02 of 2019.

02. The petitioners herein are the joint owners of the suit premises, a shop, having area of 154 sq. ft. situated on the ground floor in a G+ 2 storied building. In that building, three rooms are occupied by the landlords for the pathological clinic and medicine business. Out of the rest three rooms, two rooms were let out to the tenants (Subhrajit Das and Partha Roy) and the last room was given on lease to the tenant (the respondent herein) by the petitioners vide the deed of lease bearing No.1-2440 of 2011 for a fixed term of five years with effect from 27.05.2011 ending on the last day of month of May, 2016. For purpose of tenancy, as created by the said lease deed, the rent was fixed for the first three years @Rs.3500/- per month and for the remaining two years @Rs.3800/- per month. It is an admitted position that the rooms of the first floor and the second floor are occupied by the petitioners for their residence and clinic and according to the petitioners there is no further space to set up any dental clinic for their daughter Sarbani Bhaumik (PW-2) who is by occupation a Dental Surgeon having obtained the Bachelor Degree on Dental surgery in December, 2015. The petitioners herein had contended that the lease period was determined for five years having an eye that their daughter (PW-2) would complete the BDS course and she will be accommodated in the said shop for opening her chamber. According to the petitioners, the shop rooms as let out to Subhrajit Das and Partha Roy, two other tenants, are not suitable for opening of a chamber for their daughter. Lease-term has expired on 31.05.2016 but, as a matter of reminder, the landlord, the petitioners herein, issue notice to the tenant [the respondent] asking him to vacate the premises. The said notice was issued on 27.05.2015. In response thereof, the respondents asked for extension of the lease period for a further period of five years in terms of 'subsequent oral agreement', but disputed by the landlords. Another notice dated 24.02.2016 was issued by the petitioners asking the tenants (the respondents herein) to vacate the premises, otherwise the tenants will be liable to pay compensation @ Rs.2000/- per day.

03. The tenant by the reply dated 14.03.2016 denied to vacate the suit premises. The tenant filed the suit being TS 59 of 2016. Accompanied with that suit, a petition for temporary injunction was filed in the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, West Tripura. An ad-interim for injunction was passed on 04.07.2016 restraining the landlords from evicting the petitioner forcefully. The tenants are to be evi