Heard Mr. J. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 and Mr. B. Shahu, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2.

2. This application under Section 115 of the CPC has been preferred by third party of Title Execution No.17/2010 of the Court of Learned Munsiff No.1 at Tezpur, challenging the order dated 07.03.2014, whereby the application filed under Section 47 of the CPC was rejected. The opposite party No.1 of this revision petition as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.13/2007 in the Court of learned Munsiff at Tezpur praying for a decree of eviction of the opposite party No.2 herein (Kanhaiyalal Sarma) on the grounds of default and bona-fide requirement. The suit was decreed on 28.11.2008 on both the grounds and thereafter Title Appeal No.03/2009 was preferred by the tenant Kanhaiyalal Sarma (opposite party No.2 herein) before the learned Civil Judge at Tezpur. After hearing both sides, the learned first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by his judgment and decree dated 12.11.2009. Aggrieved, the sole defendant Kanhaiyalal Sarma preferred revision petition before this Court vide CRP No.63/2010, challenging the concurrent findings of the learned two Courts below on the points of default and bona-fide requirement. This High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the judgment and decree of eviction on the aforesaid grounds of default and bona-fide requirement. The revision petition was dismissed on 03.05.2010. Thereafter, the opposite party No.1 herein, being the decree holder, instituted Title Execution Case No.17/2010 in the Court of learned Munsiff at Tezpur for eviction of the opposite party No.2 herein (Kanhaiyalal Sarma). In course of the execution proceeding, Civil Nazir visited the decreetal premises and on being confronted with protest, he filed application before the learned Executing Court for police help. At this stage, the present petitioner as third party, filed an application under Section 47 read with Rule-97 and 101 of Order-XXI of the CPC staking claim for the first time that he had been in possession of three rooms of the decreetal premises as a sub-tenant of the original tenant (Kanhaiyalal Sarma). According to him, on the basis of a written agreement dated 26.08.1998, three rooms, one kitchen and one sanitary bathroom was sub-tenanted to him by original tenant Kanhaiyalal Sarma at a monthly rental of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) and he also accepted an advance of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) for the purpose. The petitioner claimed that only after institution of the Title Execution Case, he became aware that there was collusion between the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 herein really for his eviction from the suit premises and so he made a prayer for adjudicating his right, title and interest in the suit premises declaring the eviction decree passed in Title Suit No.13/2007 in-executable.

3. The decree holder, who is the land lord of the suit premises, filed a written objection being opposite party No.1 and totally denied existence of any sub-tenancy between the opposite party No.2 and the petitioner. It was specifically stated that even while the Court officials went to the suit land and house with execution process, no such fact of sub-tenancy was ever disclosed and the plea of sub-tenancy is really a sham. On the basis of such rival contention of the parties, the learned Court permitted them to adduce evidence in their respective favour. The present petitioner examined two witnesses including himself. The petitioner was examined as PW-1 and one Laxmi Narayan Sarma was examined as PW-2. Both the witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined by the opposite party No.1/decree holder. The decree holder on the other hand, examined herself as the sole witness.

4. In course of his examination-in-chief, the petitioner reiterated the same averments recited in the application filed u/s 47 of CPC, but while