1. In this revision petition preferred by tenants the concurrent findings of learned two courts below have been challenged. The eviction suit filed by the landlord was decreed by the learned trial court by judgment and decree dated 13.12.2006 in Title Suit No.70/2002 and Title Appeal No.4/2007 filed there against by the tenants was dismissed by the learned First Appellate Court on 16.07.2008.

2. It is necessary to narrate the brief facts as pleaded by the parties in the present proceeding. The plaintiffs, namely, Smti. Savitri Devi Kejriwal and Smti. Gita Devi Thard, instituted Title Suit No.70/2002 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1 at Dibrugarh against as many as 13 defendants out of which 12 are principal defendants and one is proforma defendant. It is stated in the body of the plaint that Late Madanlal Khemka being Karta of M/s Nopatrai Ramavatar, a Hindu Undivided Family, came to occupy the suit premises under the proforma defendant No.13 as a tenant agreeing to pay Rs.130/- per month at the end of each month as per English calendar and also agreeing to pay the municipal taxes regularly. Upon death of Madanlal Khemka tenancy devolved on his legal heirs. On the death of his two daughters, namely, Maina Devi and Kanta Devi her tenancy rights devolved on the defendant Nos.5 and 6 and 7 to 10. Wife of Madanlal Khemka thereafter died and thus the sons and the legal heirs of the daughters were the tenants. The proforma defendant No.13 executed a registered sale deed dated 01.06.1978 in favour of the plaintiffs and thus the present plaintiffs stepped into the shoe of the landlord as against the principal defendants but they did not attorn the plaintiffs and did not pay rent since the month of June, 1978 even after being communicated about the same. The proforma defendant by his letter dated 11.09.1978 informed the defendant No.1 about the transfer of title of the suit premises and thereby requested him to attorn the plaintiffs as their landlords. The plaintiffs thereafter by executing a registered general power of attorney on 14.06.1979 appointed Sri Bajrang Lal Kejriwal as constituted attorney. This constituted attorney is none other than the husband of the plaintiff No.1 and younger brother of plaintiff No.2. The attorney was authorized to do all acts, deeds, things and matters in respect of the suit premises in their name and on behalf of plaintiffs. A copy of the general power of attorney was also annexed to the plaint as document No.1. The plaintiffs further stated that the defendants though have been using and enjoying the suit premises without paying rent to the plaintiffs since the month of June, 1978, they had become defaulter and are liable to be evicted from the suit premises. Besides, the suit premises is also required bona fide for the following four reasons:-

(a) The husband of the plaintiff No.1, who has been suffering from osteoarthritis and being under treatment of Dr. Bipul Borthakur, has difficulty to attend his chamber at the first floor of the building for which he wanted to shift to the ground floor but there was no space in the ground floor unless the eviction is made;

(b) Sri Ramesh Kejriwal, son of the plaintiff No.1 has been doing the business under the name and style of M/s Sabitri Drugs in a rental house and he has been served with eviction notice by the landlord and so he is also required to be accommodated at the ground floor;

(c) Another son of the plaintiff No.1, Kamal Kejriwal, does not have any formal business of his own and so he is also in need of being accommodated for the purpose of running the business;

(d) Lastly, there is lack of sufficient space in the present residence of the plaintiff No.1 and the two would be daughters-in-law.

The further allegation is that although under the terms of the tenancy the defendants were liable to pay municipal taxes of the suit premises but since the year 1982-83 they have failed to do so for which the plaintiffs were compelled to