Page No.# 1/7 GAHC010075192023 2026:GAU-AS:14019 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/103/2023 RAJAT KARMAKAR S/O LATE RABINDRA NATH KARMAKAR, R/O SITARAM, PUKHURPAR ROAD, P.O. AND P.S.-DIBRUGARH, DIST-DIBRUGARH, ASSAM VERSUS VIJAY KUMAR VERMA S/O LATE JANARDAN PRASAD VERMA, R/O B.C. DAS ROAD, SANTIPARA, DIBRUGARH TOWN, P.O., P.S. AND DIST-DIBRUGARH, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR SISHIR DUTTA, MR S DUTTA,MR. S DUTTA,MS S MOCHAHARI Advocate for the Respondent : MR. S P CHOUDHURY, MS B DEVI,MR. S. J. SARKAR,MR K BISWAKARMA BEFORE: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE YARENJUNGLA LONGKUMER Advocates: For the Petitioner : Mr. S. Dutta (Sr. Counsel) : Ms. S. Mochahari For the Respondents : Mr. S.P. Choudhury Date of Hearing and Judgment : 22.09.2026 Page No.# 2/7 JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL) 1. The instant application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred by the Petitioner assailing the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh arising out of Title Suit No. 232/2015. 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel, Mr. S. Dutta, assisted by Ms. S. Mochahari, learned counsel for the Petitioner. Also heard learned counsel, Mr. S.P. Choudhury, for the Respondent. 3. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant revision petition is that the Plaintiff/Respondent had filed Title Suit No. 232/2015 against the Defendant for recovery of khass possession of suit premises by evicting the Petitioner and for recovery of arrear rent. The Plaintiff/Respondent had contended in the complaint that the Plaintiff is the lawful owner of the land in the premises in question and that the Defendant/Petitioner’s father came to occupy the suit premises as a monthly tenant under the deceased father of the Plaintiff. The tenancy of the suit premises and the rent was fixed at a monthly rent of Rs. 802/- (Rupees Eight hundred Two only). It was contended that the Defendant/Petitioner has not paid the rent up to May 2014 and in spite of issuing legal notice to vacate the premises the Defendant neither evicted the premise nor paid the arrear rent. It was, therefore, alleged that the Defendant/Petitioner is a defaulter and has stopped paying from June 2014 onwards. 4. The Petitioner/Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement and Page No.# 3/7 the Petitioner/Defendant contended that he had paid the rent regularly through various account payee cheques even after the filing of the aforementioned Title Suit No. 232/2015. The Petitioner has also enclosed the copies of the cheques, specifically Cheque No. 730801 dated 24.04.2015 amounting to Rs. 10,560/-; Cheque No. 659287 dated 18.04.2016 amounting to Rs. 20,000/- and Cheque No. 123650 dated 24.01.2020 for an amount of Rs. 52,800/-. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that during the pendency of the Title Suit the Plaintiff/Respondent filed a petition No. 668/2020 stating that the Defendant/Petitioner, instead of transferring the rent to the Plaintiff had, without his knowledge and consent, deposited an amount of Rs. 52,800/- only in the bank account of the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Plaintiff/Respondent prayed for declaring such deposit in the bank account of the Plaintiff as illegal and further asked the Petitioner to take back the money. 6. After hearing the parties, the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh vide the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 allowed the petition filed by the Plaintiff/Respondent holding that the transfer of arrear rent is only a matter of compromise; however, in the present case he did not see any chances of compromise and further held that the amount transferred without the consent of the Plaintiff was illegal and further directed the Plaintiff to either retain the arrear rent or to transfer it back to the Defendant. 7. Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh in petition No. 668/2020 arising out of Title Suit No. 232/2015, the Petitioner herein has filed the present revision petition on the ground that the Plaintiff/Respondent in his cross-examination before the Page No.# 4/7 Trial Court had admitted that he had received the rent payments as claimed by the Defendant and also stated that he did not return the money. This clearly reveals that the Plaintiff had never refused to accept the rent and that the Petitioner/Defendant had been regularly paying the same in the bank account of the Plaintiff since 2014 and to which the Plaintiff never objected. Only by filing the petition No. 668/2020 the Plaintiff has raised the issue that the Defendant had deposited Rs. 52,800/- in the bank account of the Plaintiff without his knowledge and consent. Another ground taken by the Petitioner is that the learned Trial Court committed an error and came to a perverse finding by holding that the subsequent transfer of rent is a matter of compromise but the Court failed to appreciate the fact that the rent was being paid continuously in the bank account of the Plaintiff and that it was not a question of subsequent payment of rent. 8. It is further contended by the learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the learned Court below came to the wrong conclusion by holding that there is no chance for compromise and that the money transferred without the consent of the Plaintiff is illegal without considering the fact that the Plaintiff has clearly admitted that he had been receiving the rent since 2014 and that he never returned the rent back to the Petitioner. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that according to the initial rent agreement between the parties, there was no specific mode of payment laid down and also the mode of payment made by the present Petitioner/Defendant by cheque was never objected to by the Plaintiff at any point of time. 9. The learned Senior Counsel has also submitted that by issuing the impugned order directing the Plaintiff to either retain or transfer back the amount of arrear Page No.# 5/7 rent to the Defendant, the Petitioner herein has been indirectly non-suited and, therefore, such order needs to be interfered with by this Court. 10 . Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the Defendant/Plaintiff submits that there is no perversity in the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 inasmuch as the learned Trial Court has specifically held that the aspect of non- payment of rent by the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff, will be taken into account as on the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the Petitioner is not prejudiced in any way by the impugned order. Learned counsel also submits that the Respondent/Plaintiff was not aware of the deposits made by the Defendant in 2015 and 2016 through various cheques. He only came to know about the deposit made by the Defendant on 24.01.2020, which was a deposit of Rs. 52,800/-. On coming to know about the same he filed the petition No. 668/2020. By filing the said petition No. 668/2020 he had prayed before the Trial Court to declare that the deposit of the said amount of Rs. 52,800/- without his consent is illegal and to ask the Defendant to take back the money. In such circumstances the learned Trial Court has rightly passed the order dated 16.11.2022 and in view of the limited scope of interference by this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the CPC, learned counsel submits that there is no perversity in the order dated 16.11.2022 and, therefore, this Court may not interfere in the same. 11. This Court has duly considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings in detail. 12. No doubt the scope of revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is limited and this Court may interfere only when the subordinate court has Page No.# 6/7 exercised jurisdiction not vested by law or failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in it, or acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. A revision is not a second appeal and this Court shall not appreciate the evidence. However, when there is patent illegality or perversity in the order of the subordinate court, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution can be exercised. 13. Upon going through the pleadings as well as the documents enclosed along with the petition, this Court has observed that even after the Title Suit was filed in the year 2015, the Petitioner/Defendant had been depositing the rent through account payee cheques. The said cheques specifically one cheque dated 24.04.2015 amounting to Rs. 10,560/- and another cheque dated 18.04.2016 amounting to Rs. 20,000/- are on record and these were admittedly deposited in the account of the Plaintiff after the filing of the Title Suit No. 232/2015. It was only in the year 2020 that the Plaintiff filed petition No. 668/2020 stating that the Petitioner/Defendant had deposited an amount of Rs. 52,800/- in his account without his knowledge. However, the Plaintiff/Respondent has not made any reference to the earlier cheques deposited in 2015 and 2016 and has not raised any objections with regard to the same. 14. The question as to whether the Petitioner/Defendant is a defaulter or not has to be decided by the Trial Court in Title Suit No. 232/2015 and the same will be decided taking into account the status as on the date of filing of the title suit. Any amount deposited by the Petitioner/Defendant after the filing of the Title Suit No. 232/2015 shall be subject to the outcome of the Title Suit No. 232/2015. Page No.# 7/7 15. The learned counsel for the Respondent/Plaintiff, during the course of hearing, has also referred to the provision of Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 and by referring to the same had submitted that after the filing of the suit, the tenant can only deposit the arrear amount before the court and cannot deposit in the account of the landlord/Plaintiff. However, this Court is of the view that this is not a case where the landlord had refused to accept the rent. As no objections were made by the Plaintiff when the rent was being deposited in 2015 and 2016. 16. In view of the above observations, this Court is of the view that the order dated 16.11.2022 does not suffer from any perversity as it has not adversely affected the rights of any of the parties. However, the instant petition is disposed of by modifying the order dated 16.11.2022 to the extent that the amounts deposited by the Petitioner/Defendant in the account of the Plaintiff shall remain as it is and will be subject to the outcome of the final adjudication of Title Suit No. 232/2015. 17. With the above observations and modification, the instant petition stands disposed of. JUDGE Comparing Assistant