Page No.# 1/14 GAHC010235572016 2025:GAU-AS:5307 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/70/2016 HIMADRI DOWERAH S/O SRI DILIP DOWERAH RO CHIRING CHAPORI P.O. andP.S. DIBRUGARH DIST. DIBRUGARH, ASSAM. VERSUS RAJIV DUTTA and 3 ORS. 2:SRI RAKTIM DUTTA 3:SRI BHASKAR JYOTI DUTTA ALL ARE SONS OF LT. DANDADHAR DUTTA 4:SMT. RANJANA DUTTA W/O SRI ABHIJIT KUMAR BARUAH ALL ARE RESIDENT SOF CHOWKIDINGHEE P.O. and P.S. DIBRUGARH DIST. DIBRUGARH ASSAM BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH Advocate for the petitioner(s) : Mr N K Kalita Advocate for the respondent(s) : Mr G Rahul Date of Hearing and Judgment : 28.04.2025. JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) Heard Mr N K Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr G Rahul, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents. Page No.# 2/14 2. The revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked by the petitioner to challenge the judgment and decree dated 10.05.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh (hereinafter, referred to as “the Learned First Appellate Court”), in Title Appeal No. 71/2013, whereby the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2013, passed by the learning Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh (hereinafter, referred to as the Learned Trial Court) in Title Suit No. 47/2008, has been 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 re-appreciation 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, 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 Page No.# 3/14 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 well settled, let this Court take up as to whether the petitioner herein has been able to make out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.05.2015, passed by the Learned First Appellate Court, in Title Appeal No. 71/2013. For adjudging the said aspect, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant proceedings. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein, are referred to, in the same status, as they stood before the learned trial Court. 6. The respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3, herein along with one Smt Ranjana Dutta and Dr Dandadhar Dutta joined together to file a suit, being Title Suit No. 17/2000, before the Court of learned Civil Judge No. 1 (Junior Division) at Dibrugarh, seeking ejectment of defendant from the suit premises, on the grounds of bona fide requirement of the suit premises, as well as on the ground of defaulter in payment of due rent. The case set up by the plaintiffs were that on 01.04.1991, the defendant came to occupy the premises consisting of one room admeasuring 12 feet x 26 feet with partition, one part measuring 12 feet x 12 feet, and the other part being 12 feet x 14 feet, as tenant under the original plaintiff at the rent of Rs. 800/- per month, for running the business of battery Page No.# 4/14 manufacturing and repairing, on the condition that the defendant would vacate the premises as and when he will be asked to do so. Sometime later in the in the year 1996, the defendant requested the original plaintiff for further accommodation of another adjacent room measuring 12 feet x 6 feet, which the original plaintiff allowed the defendant to occupy the said room on 01.12.1996, on a further rent of Rs. 250/- per month on the same condition. In that extended part, the defendant started stationery business. There is another part of the premises next to the subsequently rented part of the premises, which in May 1997, the original plaintiff let out to the defendant admeasuring 12 feet x 6 feet w.e.f. 01.06.1997 at the rent of Rs. 250/- per month. The said scheduled premises have been specifically described in the schedule to the plaint. 7. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that the younger son of the original plaintiff had been running a furniture unit towards the east part of the suit premises, but there is shortage of space and as such he has to run his workshop in an open space. It was also alleged that the younger son is, therefore, in acute need of accommodation for his furniture units. Further to that it was also alleged that the eldest son of the original plaintiff had started a grocery shop and it is under such circumstances, the suit premises is required. 8. The plaintiff's further case, as would be seen from the plaint is that the plaintiffs had been requesting the defendant to quit and vacate the premises, as there was a need for the space. However, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises. Finding no alternative, the plaintiffs served a notice upon the defendant on 22.10.1999, asking the defendant to quit and vacate the suit premises. During the pendency of the suit, the original plaintiff died, leaving the plaintiffs as well as the heirs and the plaintiffs required the suit premises for their own business. 9. Per contra, the defendant, after being served the summons, stated in his written Page No.# 5/14 statement that the defendant was not a defaulter in payment of rent and the defendant has been paying the monthly rent regularly. On the question of bona fide requirement, it was stated that the plaintiffs have another residence at Milannagar, Dibrugarh, with 9 (nine) shop houses in front of that house and the eldest son of the original plaintiff was running a grocery business in one of those shop houses and the second son is running a furniture shop in a shop contiguous to the said suit premises. It was also mentioned that the other shop houses were rented out to the other tenants. It is, therefore, the case of the defendant that the plaintiff did not require the suit premises for their own use and rather, the basic intention behind the filing of the suit by the original plaintiff, as well as subsequently, continued by the substituted plaintiffs, is just to evict the defendant and to rent out the suit premises with enhanced rents. 10. On the basis of the pleadings, as many as six issues were framed, which being relevant are reproduced hereinunder: i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? ii) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? iii) Whether the defendant is a defaulter in paying the rent to the landlord in respect of the suit premises? iv) Whether the suit premises are required bona fide by the plaintiff? v) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs claimed for? vi) To what reliefs the parties are entitled to? 11. On behalf of the plaintiff, three witnesses were examined and six documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendant, three witnesses were also examined and some documents were exhibited. 12. The Learned Trial Court, while deciding the Issue No. (iii), as to whether the Page No.# 6/14 defendant was a defaulter in payment of the rent, came to a categorical finding that the plaintiffs have failed to adduce sufficient evidence to prove that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent. It was also the finding of fact, arrived at by the Learned Trial Court, that the evidence of the Sheristadar revealed that, since July 2000, the defendant had been regularly depositing the monthly rent in the court. At this stage, this Court finds it relevant to observe that it is a trite principle of law when the plaintiff alleges that the defendant is a defaulter in payment of the rent, the burden shifts upon the defendant, who is the tenant, to prove that he is not the defaulter in payment of rent. 13. This Court, further finds it relevant to take note of the discussion, as regards Issue No. (iv), by the Learned Trial Court which pertains to whether the plaintiffs have bona fide requirement of the suit premises. The Learned Trial Court, taking into account the evidence of the parties, came to a categorical finding that the plaintiffs have bona fide requirement of the suit premises. This Court, at this stage, finds it apposite to observe that a perusal of the written statement filed by the defendant, where it is duly admitted that the notice to vacate was issued on 22.10.1999, but there is no mention, whatsoever in the written statement, that the defendant had made any attempt to seek any alternative accommodation and was unable to get it. 14. Continuing further, it is relevant to take note of that on the basis that the plaintiffs were found to have bona fide requirement of the suit premises, the Learned Trial Court decreed the suit vide the judgment and decree dated 19.11.2023, thereby directing the defendant herein, to vacate the suit premises and deliver vacant possession thereof, to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs were also given the liberty to withdraw the rents deposited by the defendant in the office of the Rent Controller. 15. The defendant being aggrieved, preferred an Appeal before the Learned First Appellate Court, i.e., the Court of the Civil Judge at Dibrugarh, which was registered Page No.# 7/14 and numbered as Title Appeal No. 71 of 2023. The Learned First Appellate Court confirmed the findings of the Learned First Trial Court in respect to bona fide requirement of the suit premises, and accordingly affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Learned Trial Court and it is under such circumstances, the present revision proceeding is before this Court. 16. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials on record, including the LCR called for. Taking into account that the revisional jurisdiction has been exercised only on the question as regards bona fide requirement in the suit premises, which have been concurrently held by both the Courts below, the question, therefore arises, as to whether the learned Courts below have exercised its jurisdiction in a manner not provided by law or as to whether the jurisdiction so exercised was illegal and suffered from material irregularity. 17. Mr N K Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the learned Courts below failed to take into account that there were other rooms, which were available and the plaintiffs have only pinpointed the defendant, in order to eject him and then rent out the suit premises to some other tenants at a high rent. He, therefore, submitted that the learned Courts below failed to take note of that the plea of the plaintiffs as regards bona fide requirement was a mere desire and not a requirement. 18. Per contra, Mr G Rahul, the learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that both the Courts have arrived at a concurrent finding of fact that the suit premises is bona fidely required by the Respondents/Plaintiffs. He submitted that sans any perversity shown the question of interfering with the concurrent finding of fact is not permissible. This Court has duly considered the materials on record and have given an anxious consideration to the submissions so made by the learned counsels for the parties. Before Page No.# 8/14 deciding the dispute, this Court finds it relevant to take note of some of the judgments of the Supreme Court. 19. In the case of Mehmooda Gulshan –Vs- Javaid Hussain Mungloo; reported in (2017) 5 SCC 683, the Supreme Court held that when a question arises whether there is a reasonable requirement by the landlord of the premises, this Court is required to see whether the landlord has been able to establish a genuine element of the need of the premises. It was held that a genuine need would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, which can be culled out upon the appreciation of the evidence and once there is no perversity in the appreciation of the evidence on the need, the said finding of fact cannot be reopened. Paragraph-20 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinunder:- “20. Thus, the question is whether there is a reasonable requirement by the landlord of the premises. This would depend on whether the landlord has been able to establish a genuine element of need for the premises. What is a genuine need would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Merely because the landlord has not examined the member of the family who intends to do business in the premises, he cannot be non-suited in case he has otherwise established a genuine need. The need is a matter of appreciation of evidence, and once there is no perversity in the appreciation of evidence on the need, the said finding of fact cannot be reopened. It may be crucially relevant to note that the eviction is not sought on the last limb of Section 11(1)(h) of the Act namely, “for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the house or shop is held”. The premises sought to be evicted is not held for the benefit of the son alone; but the whole family. It is for the own occupation of the landlord. It has been established in the facts of this case that the landlord was not happy and content with the paltry rent received from the premises. The landlord intended to engage her son in the business at the premises. It is for the landlord to decide as to the best use the Page No.# 9/14 premises should be put to. There is nothing wrong on the part of a landlord in making plans for a better living by doing business engaging her son. Having regard to the background of the son who is unemployed and undereducated, the appellant was able to establish that business was the available option and the tenanted premises was the only space available. Thus, the genuine need for the premises has been established. Unfortunately, the High Court has missed these crucial aspects.” 20. In a recent judgment of the Supreme Court, in the case of Murlidhar Aggarwal (D) through his LRs –Vs- Mahendra Pratap Kakan (D) through his LRs; reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 915, the Supreme Court dealt with a very pertinent aspect in respect to a long drawn litigation, which touches on the question of bona fide requirement of the suit premises. It was observed that the tenant has to show that during the pendency of the long drawn litigation, he had made attempts to seek alternative accommodation, but was unable to get it. It was observed that the said factor is one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration while determining, whether the claim of the landlord was bona fide. Paragraph-28 of the said judgment is reproduced hereinunder:- “28. In Mohd. Ayub and Anr. v. Mukesh Chand, (2012) 2 SCC 155, this Court, by relying on Ganga Devi v. District Judge, Nainital and Ors., (2008) 7 SCC 770 and Bhagwan Dass v. Jiley Kaur (Smt) and Anr., 1991 Supp (2) SCC 300, held that one of the circumstances to be seen while appreciating the comparative hardship is to examine whether the tenant has brought on record any material to indicate that at any time during the pendency of the long drawn-out litigation, he made any attempt to seek an alternative accommodation and was unable to get it. This factor will be one of the circumstances to be taken into consideration while determining whether the claim of the landlord is bona fide. In this case, nothing is on record to show that the tenant who has been in the Page No.# 10/14 premises for a total of 73 years with 63 years of them after the expiry of the lease, has made any attempt to seek any alternative accommodation and nothing is brought on record to show that he was unable to get one.” 21. In the backdrop of the above settled position of law, let this Court take note of the findings of the learned First Appellate Court on the issue pertaining to bona fide requirement of the suit premises. The learned First Appellate Court, at Paragraph-32, 33 and 34 of the impugned judgment arrived at the following findings. The relevant portion of the said Paragraphs are quoted hereinbelow: “(32) These judgments were cited by the ld. Counsels on the point of bona fide requirements. The Hon'ble Higher Courts viewed bona fide requirements to be genuinely, pressingly, honestly need the premises in question for use. Therefore it can be said that only desire cannot be bona fide. Therefore, in our case in hand, it is required to see as to whether the plaintiff has genuine, pressingly and honestly need the suit premises. As per evidence of PW-1 it is seen that his brother Bhaskar Jyoti Dutta has been running a furniture shop towards the eastern part of the suit premises. There is acute dearth of space and compelled to keep his materials in the open space at the back side of the suit premises. From the evidence of PW-2 Bhaskar Jyoti Dutta who is the brother of the PW-1 it is noticed that his furniture business is growing and expanding therefore he requires more space and he kept his article in open space resulting to destruction of these for environmental reason. In rainy season it becomes difficult to work there. PW-3 Rajib Dutta deposed that his brother Bhaskar Jyoti Dutta has a furniture shop running by the suit premises and his business is growing day by day therefore more space is required and the suit premises is required for the said purpose. The defendant has deposed that plaintiffs have another residence at Milon Nagar, Dibrugarh town and they have nine shop houses in front of their house. The eldest son of the original plaintiff running a grocery shop and second son of the original Page No.# 11/14 plaintiff running a furniture shop continuous to the suit premises and youngest son of the original plaintiff running a battery shop at Milon Nagar. So the requirement of the suit premises to the plaintiff is not bonafide. (33) From the evidence on the record it is noticed which is also admitted by the defendant is that one son of the original plaintiff has been running a furniture shop near the suit premises and he used to store logs in a shade. The plea of the plaintiff is that suit premises is required for expansion of the existing furniture businesses and due to shortage of space said furniture business has suffered. (34) The defendant during his cross examination revealed that towards eastern direction of his shop there is a furniture shop of his land lord. It is also noticed that plaintiff stores the logs required for the shop in that shed. It is also notice that during rainy season the logs were damaged. In my considered view the original son of the plaintiff has every right to expand his business. And for this reason he needs the suit premises which is genuine and his need is honest.” 22. The findings of the Learned Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence is also similar. No perversity in respect to the said findings could be shown from the evidence on record. In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mehmooda Gulshan (supra), these findings of fact cannot be interfered with, as there appears to be no perversity. 23. This Court had also taken note of that, in the present long drawn litigation spanning twenty five years, there is nothing on record placed by the petitioner, who is a tenant, that the petitioner had searched for alternative places but could not find. This also is a relevant factor which requires to be taken into account while deciding the bona fide requirement of the suit premises. 24. Consequently, this Court finds no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment Page No.# 12/14 and decree dated 10.05.2015, passed by the Learned First Appellate Court, in Title Appeal No. 71/2013. 25. Mr N K Kalita, the learned counsel for the petitioner, on completion of the dictation of this judgment, in open Court, submitted that, some time may be granted to the petitioner, as he is presently running a business for the suit premises. The learned counsel for the Respondents objected to such submission, on the ground that the respondents have been deprived of the suit premises for the last 25 years. 26. This Court had given anxious consideration to the respective submissions made on this aspect. This Court is not unmindful of the fact that the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein, have been deprived of the enjoyment of the suit premises even after the fact that they had proved that they have bona fide requirement of the suit premises. On the other hand, the Defendant/Petitioner had been running a business establishment and naturally if the plaintiff is ousted immediately, it would result in great difficulties. In the opinion of this Court, the Defendant/Petitioner can be granted 5 (five) months’ time for shifting his business from the suit premises subject, however, to taking undertaking before the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, this Court observes that the defendant/petitioner can be granted time to occupy the suit premises till 30.09.2025, subject to filing an undertaking before the learned Trial Court on or before 9th of May, 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 30th of September, 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 Plaintiffs/Respondents herein in respect to the suit premises. Page No.# 13/14 c) The Defendant/Petitioner shall pay in the form of compensation an amount of Rs. 10,000/- per month to the Plaintiffs/Respondents, during this period. This payment under no circumstances shall create any right and interest over the suit premises and shall also not create any landlord-tenant relationship. d) The Defendant/Petitioner shall hold the suit premises as a custodian of the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein, and on the basis thereof, the Defendant/Petitioner would not do anything, which would affect the rights of the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein, in any manner. 27. It is observed that if the undertaking is not filed before the learned Trial Court by the Defendant/Petitioner on or before 9th of May, 2025, the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein, shall be entitled to proceed with the execution. 28. 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 an 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. 29. This Court further observes that the Plaintiffs/Respondents herein would be entitled to recovery of the rent for the period from the date of filing of the suit till 9th of May, 2025. For that purpose, the Respondents 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, as to, how much amount had been deposited by the Petitioner/Defendant, 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. Page No.# 14/14 30. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that the petitioner herein, had unnecessarily deprived of the enjoyment of the tenanted premises and on 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/- (Rupees Eleven Thousand) only, upon the petitioner. 31. Interim order, if any, stands vacated in view of the directions as given hereinabove. 32. Revision petition, accordingly, stands dismissed, subject to the observation(s), as made hereinabove. 33. LCR be returned back. JUDGE Comparing Assistant