Point of law: In terms with the Act of 1972, the jurisdiction of the First Appellate Court under Section 8 of the said Act is the final authority in the matter and the scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited. Under such circumstances, it is the requirement of law that the First Appellate Court while exercising its jurisdiction decides so in the manner envisaged under Order XLI Rule 31 which mandates that the First Appellate Court shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon, the reasons for the decision, as well as when the decree appeal from is reversed state the relief(s) to which the appellant is entitled to.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. A. Sattar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2020 passed by the Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in Title Appeal No.66/2017, whereby the judgment and decree dated 22.08.2017 passed by the Munsiff No.2, Kamrup(M) at Guwahati in Title Suit No.214/2014 was affirmed.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondents herein as plaintiffs had instituted a suit against the petitioners along with the proforma-respondent nos.3, 4, 5 and 6 for ejectment and recovery of possession and realisation of the arrear and future rent.

4. For the purpose of convenience, the parties herein are referred to in the same status as they appeared in the suit.

5. The predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs had entered into an agreement dated 10.10.1985 with one Sahid Ali, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants for construction of a R.C.C. building in the form of Schedule-B and christened the said agreement as “agreement to construct a building”. The said premises was erected over the existing structure of Holding No.8 of Ward No.30B, as per the approved plan of the GMC. In terms of with said agreement, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants was permitted to construct the Schedule-B premises within a period of 2 years from the date of the agreement and to keep the account of the money spend therein which would stand as advance to be duly acknowledged by the predecessor of the plaintiffs. The structures were completed on 01.03.1987 and in terms with the agreement dated 10.10.1985, the said Schedule-B premises was let out for a period of 30 years, wherein the monthly rent was fixed at Rs.6,000/-per month, payable as per English calendar month, subject to an adjustment of 50% of the rent from the advance amount i.e. the amount incurred by the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants in construction and on calculation was Rs.9,48,378.77. This amount of advance was duly acknowledged by both the parties to be the cost for construction of the Schedule–B property. The said construction upon being completed was assessed by the GMC authorities as Holding No.8A and 117 initially in the name of Hasna Ara Choudhury (mother of the plaintiffs) and subsequently in the name of the plaintiff no.1 vide an order dated 20.01.2003. It was the case of the plaintiffs that in terms with Clause 3, 4 & 5 of the agreement dated 10.10.1985, the stipulated monthly rent should be paid by the tenant to the landlord preferably at the end of every English calendar month after deducting by adjusting 50% from the advance and the period of tenancy was 30 years and after expiry of 30 years the lease shall be renewed if the second party i.e. the tenant desires to continue the same. In terms of with the plaintiffs the said amount of Rs.9,48,378.77 stood adjusted as on 30.06.2013 leaving a sum of Rs.378.77 paisa due to be adjusted in the monthly rent of the month of July, 2013. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that only Rs.378.77 paisa was the remaining outstanding advance and as such the defendants were liable to pay an amount of Rs.5621.23 as the rent for the month of July, 2013 and thereafter @ Rs.6,000/-per month from the month of August 2013. But as the defendants failed to make such payment the suit was filed for eviction of the defendants on the ground that they have become defaulters in payment of rent. It was also pleaded in the plaint that the defendants since the month of July 2013 not only failed to make payment of the monthly rent to the plaintiffs but had also let out one portion of the tenanted premises to one Mrinal Dhar, who is running a restaurant at the second floor and consequently the defendants were liable to be evicted on the ground of sub-letting. Furthermore, the plaintiffs also pleaded that they had a bonafide req