DEVASHIS BARUAH
UMANGKHINI BORMAN DUTTA W/O SRI DEEP DUTTA – Appellant
Versus
LUNA BORA W/O SRI TUTU BORA – Respondent
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
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 crea....
The court established that revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC is confined to jurisdictional errors, and findings of fact by lower courts cannot be disturbed unless they are perverse....
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, R....
Under Section 115 of Code a jurisdictional question may arise not only where Court acts solely without jurisdiction but also in a case where jurisdictional errors are committed while exercising juris....
In a suit where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent, it is the burden of the defendant to prove that there was no default committed by the defendant, who is the tena....
It is clarified that during this period of six months the defendant shall continue to make payment of amount of Rs. 60/- per month in the form of compensation to plaintiff.
Revisional jurisdiction cannot re-evaluate facts but ensures lower court decisions are free from legal errors; findings of default in rent by the defendant upheld.
It is no longer res integra that it is the burden of the defendant to prove that he had not defaulted in payment of rent in order to get the protection under section 5 (1) of Assam Urban Area Rent Co....
Sub-Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 115 of Code is in reference to exercise of jurisdiction by Court not vested in Court by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in Court.
Section 5 of the Act of 1972 stipulates various grounds on which the tenant can be evicted which includes the ground of bonafide requirement.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.