1. Heard Mr. G.P. Bhowmik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Samaria, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. By filing the present revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, the petitioner has challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.02.2011 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia, in T.S. No. 14/2010. The said suit was instituted by the petitioner under section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, praying for recovery of khas possession a shop premises.

3. It was projected by the learned counsel for the petitioner that for last several years, the petitioner was a monthly tenant of the respondent, paying a monthly rent of Rs.300/- for the shop situated in Margherita Town, Makum Mouza, Dist. Tinsukia, Assam, described in Schedule appended to the plaint. The petitioner was doing business of selling cosmetics and other items in the name and style of M/s. Variety Corner. The respondent had entered into a written agreement dated 03.09.1996 with the petitioner for letting out the shop and had also given his ‘no objection’ for installing a PCO telephone connection in the suit premises. It is stated that on 17.03.2010, when the petitioner had gone to open his shop, he found a new lock on the door of the suit premises which was put by the respondent and thereby, the petitioner was dispossessed from the suit premises. The petitioner filed a proceeding under section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code and in addition to which the petitioner has filed the said suit, praying for recovery of khas possession. The respondent did not contest the suit, which proceeded ex-parte against him. In support of his case, the petitioner exhibited 9 (nine) exhibits, viz., (1) Tenancy Agreement, (2) Rent Receipt, (3) No objection from respondent, (4) Certificate of Registration under Assam Shops & Establishment Act, (5) Trade Licence from Margherita Town Committee, (6) Rent deposit challan, (7) Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy for shops, (8) Original Photograph of the shop. The Petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and one Sri Rituraj Goswami as PW-2. As the respondent did not appear or contested the suit, the said evidence remained unrebutted.

4. The suit was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Tinsukia, by disbelieving the evidence and by holding that the petitioner could not prove that that he was possessing the suit property since the year 1996 by paying rent regularly to the respondent, further holding that the tenancy agreement (Ext.1) did not support the petitioner’s case that the same is made in respect of the suit premises.

5. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the decision of the learned court below is vitiated by exercise of jurisdiction with material irregularity and the impugned judgment was not sustainable. By referring to the impugned judgment, it is stated that the learned court disbelieved the tenancy agreement on the ground that it did not disclose any tenure and it does not contain any schedule, which is a totally perverse and erroneous appreciation of its contents. It is submitted that when both parties to the agreement are aware as to the subject matter of the agreement, the non-mentioning of schedule or tenure in the agreement cannot obliterate and/or render the said agreement as non-believable. It has been further urged that each and every exhibit proved the existence of the shop and, as such, the learned court below erred in holding that the documents do not disclose possession of the suit premises by the petitioner. It is also submitted that the learned Civil Judge instead of deciding whether the petitioner was in possession of the suit premises six months before being illegally dispossessed by the respondent, disbelieved one rent receipt (Ext.2) signed by the respondent and went on to decide that by proving Ext.2, the petitioner failed to prove that he was paying rent to the respondent regularly since 1996. S