Heard Mr. A.C. Das, learned counsel assisted by Mr. H. Betala, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.C. Keyal, learned counsel assisted by Ms. P. Barua, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. By this application filed under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, the petitioner has challenged the first appellate judgment dated 30.11.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat, in Misc. (J) Appeal No. 7/2014. By the said judgment, the order dated 28.08.2014 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Jorhat was set aside and consequently, the application filed by the respondent-plaintiff under section 6 and 7 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 for restoration of electricity connection and to repair the northern side wall was allowed.

3. In view of the issue raised in the present application, with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the matter was taken up for disposal at the admission stage.

4. The case of the respondent- plaintiff is that since the year 1975, his father was the tenant of the petitioner in respect of two separate premises, viz., (i) Shop No. 4 consisting of old tin shed premises, and (ii) Godown, bearing Godown No.6, consisting of new Tin Shed godown, both standing over a plot of land covered by Dag No. 3682/4197, K.P. Patta No. 101/350, under Municipal Holding No.20, situated at Pincha Market, Ground Floor, Chamber Road, Jorhat Town, Jorhat. On the death of his father on 06.02.1982, the respondent was accepted as the tenant under the petitioner, paying monthly rent for the said tenanted premises and also the electricity charges separately. The respondent is carrying business of empty bags from the said tenanted premises. On 04.12.2010, the tenanted premises caught fire, resulting damage to stocks and to the tenanted premises. The C.I. sheet roof, northern side boundary wall and electricity lines and fittings got badly damaged. The requests for carrying out repairs were not considered and, as such, the respondent had filed an application under section 6 and 7 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 for restoration of electricity line, which was an essential service and for carrying out repair of the CI Sheet roof and northern wall of the tenanted premises. However, in the said application, the respondent had mentioned in the Schedule that the premises was one shop room totaling 1784 square feet with C.I. Sheet roof and was situated on a part of Holding No. 19. The petitioner- landlord denied the description of the tenanted premises and in the written objection, the correct description of the two tenanted premises was given. It was also mentioned that there existed two separate rent agreements in respect of two separate premises.

5. The schedule of the tenanted premises remained un-rectified and the learned Munsiff No.1, Jorhat, by order dated 28.08.2014 rejected the prayer, inter-alia, on the ground that the respondent had failed to satisfy the court as to the identity of the suit premises and therefore, held that until the court can come to a conclusion about the identity of the rented premises, it cannot direct the repair or restoration of electricity connection.

6. The said order was put to challenge by filing Misc. Appeal before the Court of Civil Judge, Jorhat, and the said appeal filed under Order XLI Rule 1 and 2 of Civil Procedure Code was numbered as Misc. Appeal No. 7/2014. The respondent had, inter-alia, taken a ground of appeal that the minor discrepancy in the schedule is not a ground for rejection of the petition when the petitioner had admitted that the respondent herein was a tenant.

7. The learned first appellate court, by the order impugned herein, inter-alia, held that it was an admitted position that there is relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties and that it was evident that there is no discrepancy regarding the identification of the tenanted premises and upon such finding, the appeal