No revision lies against the final decision of an authority under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. The word 'final' in Section 8 of the Act implies a complete bar to further proceedings involving the dispute, and the remedy available to the aggrieved party is to approach the Court by way of writ petition under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. Will revision lie against the final order of the authority under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, is the core question, which this revision petition has raised.

2. The material facts giving rise to the present revision may be stated as follows :

(i) The opposite party herein, as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 37/ 93 aforementioned for ejactment of the defendant from the suit premises and also for arrear of rent on the ground that the defendant was defaulter and the suit premises were bona fide required for the use and occupation of the plaintiff, the case set up by the plaintiff being, briefly stated, thus: The plaintiff and his brother, namely, proforma defendant No. 5 were partners of M/s. Ellora, a registered partnership firm, situated at Club Road, Silchar, having exclusive possession of the suit room. The plaintiff and his brother let out the suit premises to the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 4 on monthly rental of Rs.850, the rent being payable before 7th day of each preceding month. The said registered firm, Ellora, was dissolved with effect from 1.4.1990 pursuant to the registered deed of dissolution of partnership, dated 25.11.1991. The suit premises fell in the exclusive share of the plaintiff and the plaintiff accordingly informed the defendant. The defendant attorned to the plaintiff as their landlord. The tenancy agreement, dated 10.4.1981, aforementioned expired on 9.4.1987 and a fresh agreement was executed enhancing the rent to Rs.1000 per month. From the very inception of the tenancy, the defendants were irregular in making payment of rents, though neither the plaintiff nor his said brother had waived the right to receive the rent as per terms of the tenancy agreement. Since the month of April, 1992, the defendants, despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff, paid no rent to the plaintiff and became defaulters. The plaintiff is serving as a doctor of Silchar Medical College Hospital, his son, who is prosecuting studies in the Medical Science, intend to start a Poly Clinic at the suit premises. The suit premises were, thus, bona fide required by the plaintiff for his own use and occupation.

(ii) The defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement, their case being, that the suit was barred by limitation, the same was bad for waiver, estoppel and acquiescence and that the plaintiff had no locus standi to institute the suit. The further case of the defendants being, in brief, thus : The defendants have been served with notice, on 22.2.1993, by the Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 1, Silchar, asking the defendants not to pay rent to the plaintiff and complying with this direction, defendants refrained from paying rent to the plaintiff and as such, they are not defaulters, particularly, when there was no fixed mode of payment and rents were being paid as and when demanded. The plaintiff received an amount of Rs.36,000 as rent for three years, i.e., with effect from 1.4.1987 to 31.3.1988, 1.4.1988 to 31.3.1989 and 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1990 and issued receipts accordingly. No arrear was required to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. The suit premises were not bona fide required by plaintiff.

(iii) Both the parties adduced evidence by examining one witness each and upon hearing, the trial Court, while holding that the defendants were defaulter, concluded that the suit premises were not bona fide required by the landlord. The suit was accordingly decreed on 8.1.1997. This decree led to the Title Appeal No. 6/97 preferred by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree. The plaintiff also preferred a Cross Objection against the finding of the learned trial Court on the point of bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the landlord. By the judgment and order, dated 11.3.1998, while the appeal was disallowed, the Cross Objection of the plaintiff succeeded. The suit was accordingly decreed for recovery of arrear rents and also for eviction of the tenant. Fee