JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A. Sattar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Sen, 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 19.12.2020 passed by the Court of the Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 24/2018, whereby the judgment and decree dated 30.1.2018 passed in Title Suit No. 332/2012 was confirmed.

3. 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 Ltd. v. 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-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 re-consideration 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. The respondents herein as plaintiffs had let out the suit premises which have been described in Schedule-2 to the plaint to the defendant (the petitioner herein) at a monthly rent of Rs. 5,000 only, payable by the defendant to the plaintiffs within the 5th day of every English calendar month for a period of 11 months by executing a tenancy agreement dated 25.10.2007. After the expiry of the said tenancy agreement dated 25.10.2007 another tenancy agreement dated 1.11.2008 was executed by and between the plaintiff No. 1 and the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiffs that after the expiry of the tenancy agreement dated 1.11.2008, the plaintiff No. 1 requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises as the suit premises was required bona fidely by the plaintiffs for their own use and occupation. But the defendant did not vacate the suit premises on one pretext or the other. However, the defendant had assured the plaintiffs that he would vacate the suit premises