Indira Shah, J.

1. The judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup, in Title Appeal No. 59 of 2012 arising out of judgment and decree dated 27.03.2012 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 3 in Title Suit No. 21 of 1982 has been challenged in this revision petition. I have heard Mr. B.K. Das, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. G. Jalan, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. O.P. Bhati, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. J. Bhati, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents/ defendants.

2. The appellant as plaintiff filed the Title Suit No. 21 of 1982 praying for decree of eviction as well as for recovery of arrear of rent as well as for compensation. The plaintiff's case, in brief, is that Late Rukmini Devi Jalan was the owner and proprietor of the house and premises known as 'Jalan House'. She let out the suit premises mentioned in Schedule-A of the Plaint to Late Shankardas Dholani for one year i.e. from 01.07.1958 to 30.06.1959 at a monthly rent of Rs. 265/- per month on written agreement entered upon between the parties.

3. Even after expiry of one year, Rukmini Devi herself allowed Late Shankardas Dholani to occupy the premises as holding over tenant at 'will' and the rent was payable within 1st Week of each calendar month. There was condition stipulated that in case of default, the plaintiff can re-enter with one month's notice. Late Rukmini Devi Jalan used to collect the rent herself by issuing receipt and Late Shankardas Dholani used to put his signature on the back of counterfoil of the receipt. The further case of the plaintiff is that Late Shankardas Dholani became a defaulter since January, 1976 and the suit premises is required bona fide by the plaintiff for use and occupation of her grandson, Dindayal Agarwal @ Jalan.

4. Late Rukmini Devi sent a notice to Late Shankardas Dholani on 15.07.1976 terminating the tenancy and determining his tenancy by holding over at 'will' and asked Late Shankardas Dholani to vacate the suit premises by 31.12.1976. Late Shankardas Dholani in his reply to the said notice raised many false allegations against the plaintiff. Thereafter, Rukmini Devi filed the present title suit against the Shankardas Dholani.

5. Shankardas Dholani contested the suit by filing written statement wherein he denied his relationship with Rukmini Devi as landlord and tenant. According to him, Choutmal Jalan (Defendant No. 2, since deceased) for all purpose was his landlord in respect of the suit premises and he used to collect the rent all along. The original agreement was executed between him and Choutmal Jalan only. He also averred that rent was not payable monthly. The receipts of payment of rent were issued only on demand and no receipt was issued from January, 1976 till October, 1976. He denied that he defaulted in payment of rent and according to him, he had been paying rent in the court since November, 1976, as the landlord and his agent refused to accept rent from him. He denied the bona fide requirement of the plaintiff.

6. Defendant No. 2 Late Coutmal Jalan (since deceased) in his written statement also denied the case of the plaintiff and claimed himself as landlord in respect of the suit premises. He stated that rent was always collected by him. According to him, the plaintiff being an old ailing lady was completely under the influence of her eldest son Bhaniram Agarwal. He also claimed that the suit premises fell in his share after a family partition in 1957.

7. During pendency of the suit, plaintiff Rukmini Devi Jalan died and the present plaintiff i.e. her grandson Dindayal Agarwal @ Jalan was substituted in her place. Defendant No. 1, Shankardas Dholani also died and he was substituted by his two sons, namely, Sushil Kumar Dholani and Ramesh Kumar Dholani. Thereafter, Sushil Kumar Dholani expired and the suit abated against him as the plaintiff failed to substitute his legal heirs. The defendant No. 2 Choutmal Jalan also expired. Howev