Point of Law: Suit for realisation of the arrear rent for the period of the eviction proceedings would result in failure of justice as well as nullify the proposition of law that the tenant is bound to pay rent during the pendency of the eviction proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. D Chakrabarty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Mazumder, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

2. This application under Section 115 of the CPC is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 25.01.2021 passed by the Civil Judge No.1, Cachar at Silchar in Title Appeal No.14/2019 whereby the judgment and decree dated 15.11.2019 passed by the Munsiff No.1 Cachar at Silchar in Title Suit No.94/2016.

3. Before entering into the facts of the case, it would be relevant to note that the petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is no longer res-integra that the revisional jurisdiction is limited in scope inasmuch as, the said jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct errors of facts however gross or even errors of law unless the said error have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. A plain reading of Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 115 is in reference to exercise of jurisdiction by the Court not vested in the Court by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in the Court. Clause (c) is in relation to exercise of jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Therefore, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure a jurisdictional question may arise not only when a Court acts wholly without jurisdiction but also in a case where jurisdictional errors are committed while exercising jurisdiction. There may be various facets of jurisdictional errors for example the finding arrived at is perverse, based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or such finding has been arrived at by ignoring or overlooking the material evidence or such finding so grossly erroneous that if allowed to stand will occasion in miscarriage of justice. This limited scope is so permitted in view of the fact that the finding of fact recorded by the Court below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of evidence or is grossly erroneous that if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. However, as held by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in the Case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh, reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78, this Court in order to satisfy itself as regards the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order cannot exercise its power as an Appellate Court to re-appreciate or re-assess the evidence to a different finding of fact. This Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a Court of First Appeal. In the backdrop of the above proposition the facts material for the adjudication of the disputes involved in the instant proceedings are taken up for consideration.

4. Brief facts of the instant case is that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 herein had filed a suit for eviction of the defendants (the petitioners herein) from the suit premises and recovery of khas possession and for realisation of arrear rent of Rs.9,000/-being the arrear rent for the period of May 2016 to July 2016 and for permanent injunction. The plaintiffs in the said suit alleged that the respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 who are the officials of a Trade Union in the name & style of Progressive Sales Representatives Union had taken on rent the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs.450/-from the father of the plaintiffs one Biswajit Gupta (since deceased) for the period of 3 years with effect from 01.01.1984 by way of a written agreement. Subsequent thereto, vide another agreement dated 09.06.1987 the period of the tenancy was extended for another period of three years with effect from 01.01.1987 to 31.12.1989 at a monthly rent of Rs.550/-. Thereafter from time to time the mo