Back
RAMA SHANKAR SINGH S/O LATE SITTAL KOIRI – Appellant
Versus
KRISHNA DEVI SHARMA BADHAI W/O LATE MAHABIR PRASAD BADHOI – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
1. Heard Mr. A. Sattar, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Khound, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1.
2. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short the Code) challenging the judgment and decree dated 24.1.2017 passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Tinsukia in Title Appeal No. 15/2013 whereby the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 26.8.2013 passed by the learned Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Tinsukia in Title Suit No. 26/2008 was upheld.
3. Before entering into the facts of the case, it would be relevant to note that the Petitioner herein have invoked the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code. It is no longer res-integra that the revisional jurisdiction is limited in scope inasmuch as the said jurisdiction cannot be exercised to correct error of facts. However gross or even errors of law unless the said errors have relation to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the dispute itself. A plain reading of Sub- Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 115 of the Code is in reference to the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court not vested in the Court by law
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....
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....
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.
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....
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....
The court affirmed that a landlord's bonafide requirement for premises is valid, and the tenant's irregular rent payments constitute default.
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.
Proviso (e) to Section 5(1) of Act of 1972 stipulates that when tenant has not paid rent lawfully due from him in respect of house within a fortnight of its falling due would come within various grou....
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
