Point of Law : Granting of extension of the period of 6 (six) months subject to filing the undertaking as aforesaid and the payment of compensation during this period of 6 (six) months shall not create any right or interest in favour of the defendant in respect to the suit premises.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.R. Shome, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P. Kataki, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2021 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sivasagar in Title Appeal No. 08/2020 thereby dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment and decree dated 17.11.2020 passed by the Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Sivasagar in Title Suit No. 48/2016.

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

4. Before entering into the facts of the case, it would be relevant to note that the petitioner has 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, (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-assesse 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.

5. The respondent herein as plaintiff had instituted the suit being registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 48/2016. In the said suit, the plaintiff claimed to be the owner of the schedule property. The said schedule property/the suit property was leased out to the defendant by the deed of lease agreement dated 03.11.2014 for a period of 11 months starting from the 1st day of November, 2014 to 30th day of September, 2015. The plaintiff further stated as per the said agreement that the rent was required to be paid within the 10th day of the next month. The defendant, after entering into the lease agreement, started her business in the tenanted premises in the name and style of ‘ Shivan Dhaba’ . It was alleged in the plaint that after a few we