JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. P.K. Roy Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. P.J. Saikia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.

2. This is a proceeding under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 8.11.2019 passed in Title Appeal No. 10/2017 by the Court of the Civil Judge, Dibrugarh, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff seeking eviction of the defendant was decreed.

3. Before embarking upon the merits of the case, it would be relevant to take note of that, that this is a proceeding under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby the revisional jurisdiction of this court has been invoked. It must be noted that the Revisionsal Court is not the 2nd Court of First Appeal and as such, the question of re-appreciating the evidence does not arise. What can be exercised in a proceeding, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction is to look into as to whether there has been an error in exercise of the jurisdiction and/or there has been any illegality or overlooking or ignoring the material evidence altogether, or the finding of the courts below suffers from perversity, or any such illegality or such finding has resulted in gross mis-carriage of justice. In other words, interference with an incorrect finding of fact for the purpose of exercising revisional jurisdiction must be understood in the context, where such findings is perverse, based on no evidence or mis-reading of evidence, or on the ground of perversity or such findings has been arrived at by ignoring or overlooking the material evidence or such finding is so grossly erroneous, if that is allowed to stand, will occasion in mis-carriage of justice.

4. In the backdrop of the above said law and the limits of jurisdiction to be exercised by the court, the factual matrix of the case is that the respondent as plaintiff instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 48/2012 whereby it was pleaded that the respondent is the landlord of the suit premises and he had let out the suit premises to the petitioner herein at the monthly rent @ Rs. 650 per month, which fell due at the end of every English Calendar month. It is the specific case of the respondent in the suit that the petitioner who is the defendant in the suit failed to make payment of the rent since the month of June 2009, and as such, the petitioner herein is a defaulter in payment of rent. It is also alleged in the plaint that in the month of January 2010, the respondent came to learn that the petitioner herein was planning to sub-let the suit to one Mr. Karthick Bhumis, which resulted in an altercation between the petitioner and the respondent. It has also been pleaded that the petitioner used to threaten the respondent with filing of criminal case against him and when the respondent requested the defendant to clear the outstanding rent, the defendant replied that he had deposited the rent to the court. It was only in the month of October 2010, the respondent came to learn that the petitioner had deposited the rent for the month of September 2010, without tendering the rent to him, to the court. On the said factual matrix the respondent instituted the said suit seeking eviction of the defendant on the ground that he is a defaulter in payment of rent. The petitioner filed his written statement denying the statements and allegations made in the plaint and for the sake of convenience, paragraphs 10 and 14 are quoted hereinbelow

“10. That the averments made in the para 5 of the plaint are not admitted. It is submitted that no monthly rent till date is stopped for the suit premises for any month in any manner, earlier it was collected from the defendant and paid-up to the month of August 2010 but in fact the same is deposited into the court under Assam Urban Area Rent Control Act to save himself from being a defaulter, on refusal to accept the same by the Plaintiff and the same is paid up to date.

14. That the allegation in p