JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent.

2) The respondent no.1, as plaintiff had instituted T.S. No. 392/2008 for ejectment of the petitioner and the proforma respondent no.2 from the tenanted premises and for recovery of arrear rent. The said suit was decreed on 07.05.2015 by the learned Munsiff No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in favour of the respondent no.1 and against the petitioner and proforma respondent no.2. The aggrieved petitioner preferred an appeal, which was registered as T.A. No. 33/2015. The said appeal was dismissed vide appellate judgment and decree dated 15.06.2019, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (M), Guwahati. Accordingly, the aggrieved petitioner has preferred this revision under Section 115 CPC.

3) Bereft of details, for the purpose of this order, it would suffice to mention that the case of the respondent no.1-plaintiff in the plaint is that she is the owner of an Assam Type house comprising of three rooms measuring (i) 17ft. X 16ft., (ii) 9ft. X 16ft., (iii) 218 sq.ft., morefully described in the plaint, of which the pet