Page No.# 1/12 GAHC010085782024 2025:GAU-AS:5312 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP/49/2024 MOHESWAR KALITA S/O LATE KHANGO RAM KALITA, R/O WARD NO. 4, RANGIA (BAZAR), P.S.- RANGIA, PIN-781354, DIST- KAMRUP (ASSAM) VERSUS BISWA NATH JAJODIA S/O LATE BAJRANGLAL JAJODIA, R/O WARD NO. 4, RANGIA (BAZAR), P.S.- RANGIA, PIN-781354, DIST- KAMRUP (ASSAM) Advocate for the Petitioner : Mr. L. Talukdar, Advocate Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. G. Bharadwaj, Advocate BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Date of Hearing : 28.04.2025 Date of Judgment : 28.04.2025 JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr. L. Talukdar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. G. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. Page No.# 2/12 2. This is an application filed under Section 115 of the Court of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the Code’) challenging the judgment and decree dated 07.12.2023 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kamrup (R) at Amingaon (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned First Appellate Court’) in Title Appeal No.06/2019 whereby the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2019 passed by the Court of the learned Munsiff, Rangia in Title Suit No.13/2014 was affirmed. 3. For the purpose of deciding as to whether this Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction against the impugned judgment and decree, this Court finds it relevant to refer to the judgment of the Supreme Court wherein the scope of the revisional jurisdiction was explained. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dilbahar Singh, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78, the Supreme Court in paragraph 43 observed as under: “43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court/first appellate authority because on reappreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the court/authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the court/authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by court/authority below, Page No.# 3/12 if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.” 4. In the backdrop of the above proposition of law settled by the Supreme Court, a question arises as to whether this Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction. For that purpose, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant application. 5. For the sake of convenience, this Court would refer to the Page No.# 4/12 parties in the same status as they stood before the learned Trial Court. 6. The respondent herein as plaintiff had filed a suit being Title Suit No.13/2014 before the Court of the learned Munsiff at Rangia against the petitioner herein who was the defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that he was the owner of a house situated at Rangia Bazar bearing holding No.4/118 standing over a plot of land admeasuring 1 katha 4 lecha covered by Dag No.1178 of KP Patta No.248. The defendant took a room in the said house admeasuring 17 feet X 39 feet for running a cloth shop at a monthly rent of Rs.500/-. It has been alleged in the plaint that at the time of taking the room on rent, the defendant promised to pay the monthly rent regularly in the first week of the consecutive month, and accordingly, for some time the defendant paid the monthly rent to the plaintiff almost in time, though not within the stipulated time of the first week of each consecutive month. Subsequent thereto, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement on 09.07.2011 when the defendant had approached the plaintiff for renovation of the tenanted premises. It was mentioned in the said agreement that the defendant shall pay the house rent in due time, i.e. 7th day of the following month. But the defendant in violation to the said agreement had stopped payment of the house rent since Page No.# 5/12 01.04.2012 till the date of filing of the suit. 7. It was also mentioned in the plaint that at the time when the suit room was let out to the defendant, the children of the plaintiff were minor and at the time when the suit was filed, the children have become major and therefore the plaintiff had decided to construct a multi-storied building demolishing the present old and dilapidated house and for that purpose he had prepared a site plan keeping the provision for accommodation of the existing tenants. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff informed the defendant and requested him to vacate the suit premises. As the defendant did not pay any heed to such request, the plaintiff served a notice dated 05.03.2013 to the defendant asking him to vacate the suit premises. However, inspite of the said notice, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises and it is under such circumstances, the suit was filed in the month of February, 2014. 8. The defendant appeared pursuant to the receipt of the summons and filed his written statement. In the written statement, it was admitted that there was an agreement dated 09.07.2011, but the main purpose for the agreement was renovation of the tenanted premises. It was further stated that the defendant was verbally permitted by the plaintiff to renovate his shop in June, 2011 and as such the defendant started Page No.# 6/12 renovation of his shop on bonafide belief during July, 2011. However, when the defendant started the work of renovation, the plaintiff suddenly asked him to stop the work and compelled him to execute a Deed of Agreement dated 09.07.2011. It was also stated by the defendant in the written statement that he had spent around Rs.4 lakh in the name of renovation, lifting of the shop above the road level, shuttering of the main door, construction, etc. At paragraph No.8 of the written statement, it was stated that the plaintiff had refused to receive the rent inspite of being offered by the defendant for the purpose of making out the case for eviction. At paragraph No.9, it was mentioned that the claim for bonafide requirement is completely vague in as much as there is no description of the name, age, occupation, education, qualification, etc. of the children of the plaintiff. Further to that, it was stated that the only son of the plaintiff is the Chartered Accountant by profession having his office at Guwahati. The defendant further stated in his written statement that he was not aware of any such construction of multi-storied building over the tenanted premises. In paragraph No.12 of the written statement, it was stated that the defendant is maintaining his family through the income of his cloth shop over the tenanted premises. 9. It is relevant to take note of that in the written statement, Page No.# 7/12 there is no mention that after receipt of the legal notice, the defendant had searched for alternative accommodation but could not find any. 10. On the basis of the pleadings, six issues were framed by the learned Trial Court which are reproduced herein under:- (i) Whether there is a cause of action for the suit? (ii) Whether the main defendant defaulted in payment of rent in respect of the suit premises and as such entitled to get an arrear rent? (iii) Whether the suit premises is bonafide requirement by the plaintiff? (iv) Whether the defendant is liable for ejectment from the suit premises? (v) Whether plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for? (vi) To what relief/reliefs plaintiff is entitled to? 11. On behalf of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined and various documents, i.e. Exhibit Nos.1 to 6 were exhibited. On behalf of the defendant, he adduced himself as a witness as DW1 and one Sri Gauri Shankar Kalita was the DW2, but no documents were exhibited. Page No.# 8/12 12. The learned Trial Court vide the judgment and decree dated 01.03.2019 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. In doing so, the learned Trial Court decided the issues pertaining to defaulter in payment of rent as well as bonafide requirement of the suit premises of the plaintiff in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. 13. Being aggrieved, the defendant preferred an Appeal before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Kamrup at Amingaon which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No.06/2019. The learned First Appellate Court after taking into account the materials on record including the judgment of the learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 07.12.2023 affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court dated 01.03.2019 and it is under such circumstances, the present revision application has been filed. 14. This Court has duly perused the impugned judgments passed by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court. From the perusal of the judgments, it is seen that the finding of facts were arrived at by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court as regards the issue pertaining to defaulter in the payment of rent calls for no interference taking into account that it is an admitted case on the part of the defendant who is the petitioner herein that vide Page No.# 9/12 NJ Case No.59/2014, he had deposited 22 months of arrear rent together, i.e. an amount of Rs.11,500/-. The very fact that the said deposit was made clearly shows the admission on the part of the petitioner/defendant that he was a defaulter in payment of the rent. 15. This Court further takes note of the findings so arrived at by the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court in respect to the issue pertaining to bonafide requirement and the findings arrived at do not call for any interference in as much as there is no error in exercise of jurisdiction or the jurisdiction has been exercised illegally or with material irregularity. Nothing was shown that the finding arrived at was perverse. 16. Accordingly, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree dated 07.12.2023 passed in Title Appeal No.06/2019. 17. While dictating the judgment, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some time may be granted to the petitioner to vacate the suit premises as the defendant/petitioner has been running a business establishment and if the defendant/petitioner is ousted immediately, it would result in great difficulties. In the opinion of this Court, the Page No.# 10/12 defendant/petitioner can be granted 5(five) months time for shifting its business from the suit premises subject, however, to filing undertaking before the learned Trial Court. 18. Accordingly, this Court observes that the defendant/petitioner is granted time to occupy the suit premises till 30.09.2025, subject to filing undertaking before the learned Trial Court on or before 09.05.2025 which should contain the following: a) That the defendant/petitioner shall vacate the suit premises described in the Schedule to the plaint on or before 30.09.2025. b). That the defendant/petitioner would not create any third party rights or do any act which would impact/prejudice the rights of the plaintiff/respondent herein in respect to the suit premises. c). The defendant/petitioner shall pay in the form of compensation an amount of Rs.500/- per month to the respondent. This payment under no circumstances shall create any right and interest over the suit premises and shall also not create any land-lord tenant relationship. 19. It is observed that if the undertaking is not filed before the learned Trial Court by the defendant/petitioner on or before Page No.# 11/12 09.05.2025, the respondent herein shall be entitled to proceed with the execution. 20. It is also observed that the undertaking submitted before the learned Trial Court on the basis of the leave so granted would be construed as undertaking filed before this Court. Under such circumstances, if the terms of the undertaking are violated, it would not only entail consequences before the learned Executing Court, but also would amount to contempt of the order(s) passed by this Court. 21. This Court further observes that the respondent herein would be entitled to recovery of the rent for the period from the date of filing of the suit till 09.05.2025. For that purpose, the respondent herein would be at liberty to approach the learned Executing Court. The learned Executing Court shall by giving opportunity to both sides decide on the entitlement after taking into consideration, how much amount had been deposited by the defendant/petitioner during the trial of the suit and till date before the Court. It shall be the burden of the defendant/petitioner to prove the amount deposited. 22. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that the respondent herein who is the plaintiff had been unnecessarily deprived of the enjoyment of the tenanted premises and on Page No.# 12/12 account of the various judicial proceedings there has been a considerable delay. Under such circumstances, as the instant petition is completely vexatious and meritless, this Court imposes a cost of Rs.11,000/- only upon the petitioner. 23. Interim order, if any, stands vacated in view of the directions as given hereinabove. 24. Revision petition, accordingly, stands dismissed subject to the observation(s) as made hereinabove. 25. LCR be returned back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant