Back
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Utpal Rajbongshi S/o Late Golok Rajbongshi – Appellant
Versus
Kanta Devi Jain And Anil Kumar Jain – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. B.K. Bhagawati, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. G. Jalan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2019 passed in Title Appeal No.6/2016 by the Court of the Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati whereby the Appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 24.08.2015 passed in Title Suit No.420/2011 by the Court of the Munsiff No.3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati was upheld.
3. For the purpose of deciding as to whether the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code can be exercised in the instant case, it would be relevant to take note of the facts involved in the instant case. The respondents herein as plaintiffs had instituted a suit being Title Suit No.420/2011. It is the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No.2 let out an RCC room to the defendant measuring more or less 550 sq. feet standing over a plot of land measuring 1 Bigha 1 Katha 19 Lecha covered by Dag No.96 of K.P. Patta No.59 of Village Dispur, Mouza Beltola and the said building was covered by Holding No.418 of
Section 5 of the Act of 1972 stipulates various grounds on which the tenant can be evicted which includes the ground of bonafide requirement.
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....
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.
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....
Section 5 (1) (e) of the Act of 1972 stipulates that a decree for eviction can be passed where the tenant had not paid the rent lawfully due from him in respect to the houses within a fortnight of it....
Suit for realisation of the arrear rent for the period of the eviction proceedings would result in failure of justice as well as nullify the proposition of law that the tenant is bound to pay rent du....
It is also made clear that this Court while exercising the revisional jurisdiction is not and cannot be equated with the power of re-consideration of all question of facts as the Court of First Appea....
The court affirmed that a landlord's bonafide requirement for premises is valid, and the tenant's irregular rent payments constitute default.
Point of law: Eviction – Default in payment of rent - Unless there is the tendering of the lawful rent by tenant, Section 5 (4) does not have any application.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
