This review application is directed against the judgment dated 24.02.2015 rendered by this court in SAO No. 6/2010. By the said order this court has set aside and quashed the judgment and decree dated 30.11.2009 rendered by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in T.A No. 13 of 2005 under which the judgment and decree dated 04.03.2005 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh in T. S. No. 19 of 1995 was set aside remanding the case to the trial court for fresh decision on the question whether or not the defendant therein was a defaulter in payment of rent.

2. I have heard Mr. B. Banerjee, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Deb, learned counsel for the review petitioners and also heard Mr. G. N Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. It may be stated that predecessors in interest of the petitioner herein and after him, the petitioner herein, occupied the premises in question on rental basis under one Ginia Devi Dhelia who was the plaintiff in T. S. No. 19 of 1995 and O.P herein. Some disputes arose regarding payment of rent between the parties for which O.P., herein as plaintiff had filed the T.S. No. 19/1995 seeking eviction of defendants therein on the ground of his being a defaulter and also on the ground of bonafide requirement of the said premises.

4. Both the defendants denied the allegations and contested the suit having filed Written Statement and on conclusion of trial, the trial Court decreed the suit on holding that the defendants were defaulter and also on holding that plaintiff therein required the house on bona-fide ground vide judgment and decree dated 04.03.2005 in T.S. No. 19/1995. The said decision was questioned in appeal which was registered as T. A. No. 13/2005.

5. Learned Appellate court on hearing the learned counsel for both the parties found that the issue whether or not the appellant/defendant is a defaulter has not been properly inquired into by the learned trial court since, according to learned appellate court, some vital documents having huge bearing on the question whether or not the defendants were defaulter were not brought on record despite defendant had done everything to bring those documents on record. Therefore, the Appellate court vide judgment/ decree dated 30.11.2009 set aside the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case to the trial court for fresh decision on the aforesaid question.

6. It may be stated that while remanding the case, the Appellate Court did not render any decision on the question whether or not the suit house is required by the plaintiff on bona-fide ground.

7. Being aggrieved, land lord had preferred an Appeal against the order of remand alleging that the order rendered by the First Appellate Court is not sustainable in law since it was not rendered in accordance with the prescription of law. Nor was it rendered on materials available on record. On the other hand, the respondent/defendant contended that there was no infirmity, whatsoever in the judgment remanding the case back to the learned trial court for fresh decision on the question whether or not the respondent had defaulted in payment of rent in respect of the suit premises.

8. This Court on hearing both the parties had found reason to conclude that there is enough materials on record to hold that respondent/tenant had defaulted in payment of rent in respect of suit premises which alone entitled the plaintiff/landlord to get a decree for eviction of tenant/defendant from the suit premises. Being so, the finding of the appellate court that the question “whether or not the defendant defaulted in making payment of rent in respect of the suit premises was not properly inquired into by the trial court” is found to be unsustainable.

9. On perusal of the judgment of the learned trial court, this court further found that the trial court found that plaintiff/landlord required the house in question on bona-fide ground as well for which t