This is a civil revision filed by the plaintiff/landlord under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order 19.5.2007 passed in Title Appeal No.5 of 2005 by Civil Judge, Karimganj, which, in turn, arise out of the order dated 3.12.2004 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1, Karimganj in Title Suit No.40 of 2004.

By impugned order, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein and affirmed the judgment/decree passed by the trial court which had dismissed the suit filed by the petitioner against the respondent for his eviction from the suit house.

So the short question, which arises for consideration in this revision petition, is whether two courts below were justified in dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for eviction filed against the defendant (respondent herein) from the suit house?

Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They however need mention in brief infra.

The petitioner is a plaintiff whereas the respondent is the defendant. The dispute in this case relates to and arises out eviction of the respondent from the suit house.

The petitioner (plaintiff) filed a suit out of which this revision arises against the respondent (defendant) claiming (respondent’s /defendant’s) eviction from the suit house. The suit was filed under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (for short hereinafter called “the Act”). It was inter alia averred in the plaint that plaintiff is a charitable society engaged in several charitable activities in the State to carry out their Societies objects. It was averred that plaintiff is the owner/landlord of the suit house, whereas the defendant is their tenant occupying the suit house at the rate of Rs.800 per month for his personal use. The eviction of respondent was sought on the ground that plaintiff’s requires the suit house for setting up of one charitable dispensary including eye care hospital on the suit land. It was alleged that plaintiff would demolish the suit house and then construct a multistoried building after demolishing the superstructure. It was alleged that defendant did not pay rent for the period specified in the plaint and hence he has become defaulter under the Act and accordingly rendered himself liable to suffer eviction from the suit house on two grounds – namely, plaintiff’s bonafide need for personal use and for non-payment of monthly rent by the defendant to the plaintiff of the suit house.

The defendant denied the existence of both the grounds and contended that alleged need set up by the plaintiff is neither genuine and nor bonafide. It was also alleged that he is not in arrears of rent and hence not a defaulter under the Act.

It is these issues which were tried by the trial court on merits on the basis of pleadings of the parties. The parties adduced evidence. The Trial court by its judgment and decree dated 3.12.2004 dismissed the plaintiff’ suit. It was held that plaintiff’s need is not made out and hence no decree can be granted on such ground. It was also held that defendant was not in arrears. With these findings, the suit was dismissed.

The plaintiff felt aggrieved filed the first appeal before the first appellate court out of which this revision arises. The appellate court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal giving rise to filing of the revision by the plaintiff.

Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. B.R.Dey, learned counsel for the respondent.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, I am inclined to dismiss the revision as in my view, the revision has no merit.

In the first place the question as to whether plaintiff’s need is bonafide or/and whether defendant is in arrears etc is essentially the questions of fact. These issues therefore need to be decided and proved by the parties with the aid of oral and documentary evidence. Once any finding is rendered by the tria