Point of Law: Petitioners to continue in possession of suit premises till 30.04.2022 is based upon undertaking of petitioners to vacate suit premises within said period and if petitioner fails to adhere to same, Respondents herein shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings including invoking contempt jurisdiction of this Court.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S. Biswas, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. None appeared for the Proforma- Respondent Nos. 4 and 5.

2. As regards the Proforma-Respondent No. 2, the office note dated 24.06.2020 does not reveal that the service is complete. However, taking into consideration the issue in hand, the judgment and order, which I propose to pass, the presence of the Proforma-Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 is not relevant for the disposal of the instant petition.

3. This is a petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2018 passed by the Civil Judge No. 2, Cachar at Silchar in Title Appeal No. 3/2009 affirming the judgment an decree dated 23.12.2008 passed by the Munsiff No. 2, Cachar at Silchar in Title Suit No. 40/2003 has been put to challenge.

4. Before embarking upon the merits of the case, it would be relevant to take note of that, that this is a proceeding under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby the revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked. It must be noted that the Revisionsal Court is not the 2nd Court of First Appeal and as such, the question of re-appreciating the evidence does not arise. What can be exercised in a proceeding, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction is to look into as to whether there has been an error in exercise of the jurisdiction and/or there has been any illegality or overlooking or ignoring the material evidence altogether, or the finding of the Courts below suffers from perversity, or any such illegality or such finding has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. In other words, interference with an incorrect finding of fact for the purpose of exercising revisional jurisdiction must be understood in the context, where such findings is perverse, based on no evidence or misreading of evidence, or on the ground of perversity or such findings has been arrived at by ignoring or overlooking the material evidence or such finding is so grossly erroneous, if that is allowed to stand, will occasion in miscarriage of justice.

5. In the backdrop of the above, the facts material for the purpose of disposal of the instant proceeding are that the respondent No. 1, as plaintiff, filed a suit being registered as Title Suit No. 40/2003, whereby the respondent No. 1 herein sought for eviction of one Abani Mohan Suklabaidya (since deceased), the original defendant as well as for recovery of arrear rent. It is the case of the plaintiff in the said suit that the original defendant took on rent the schedule premises from one Surendra Chandra Dutta at a monthly rent of Rs. 45/- to be payable on the 7th day of the following month as per the English Calendar and in that regard executed a rent note on 01.08.1964. The said arrangement between Lt. Surrendra Chandra Dutta and the original defendant continued during the life time of Surendra Ch. Dutta and after his death, the original defendant became the tenant under the landlord Sukumal Dutta, the son of Lt. Surendra Chandra Dutta and the rent was increased to Rs. 120 per month. Vide a registered Sale-Deed No. 1859 dated 06.12.1995, the suit premises was sold to the present plaintiff (respondent No. 1) herein for a valuable consideration and thereafter the original defendant attorned to the present plaintiff by paying rent @ 300 per month and in respect to which the plaintiff issued rent receipts. It may be relevant herein to mention that in paragraph 4 of the plaint, it has been categorically mentioned that the original defendant paid monthly rent @ Rs. 300/- per month to the plaintiff. It is the further case of the plaintiff in the suit that since February, 2003, the original defendant failed to pay the rent and as the suit premises is situated at the busiest commercial area of Silchar town there is bona fide requirement of the suit premises. The plai