JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This civil revision petition, filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 14.08.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh, in T.A. No. 07/2014, affirming the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2013, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Dibrugarh, in T.S. No. 113/2007.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the respondent/plaintiff is a company duly registered under Indian Companies Act, having its registered office at Bairagimath, Dibrugarh Town, managing all its work through a Board of Directors. Late Abdul Rahman, the husband of the petitioner/defendant, came to occupy the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 60 per month, according to English Calendar Month, payable at the end of each month of the tenancy. As per the allegation brought in the plaint, it is alleged that the said Abdul Rahman failed to pay the rent and thereby become a defaulter in payment of rent of the suit premises. As there was a bonafide requirement of the suit premises, the respondent/plaintiff filed a ejectment suit, being T.S. No. 52/1993, in the Court of the then Sadar Munsiff. However, the learned Munsiff dismissed the suit vide its judgment and order dated 02.01.1996.

4. Thereafter, the plaintiff again filed a fresh suit, being T. S. No. 113/2007, before the learned Munsiff No. 2, Dibrugarh, praying for recovery of khas possession and vacant possession of the suit premises along with recovery of compensation along with others. The ground taken by the plaintiff is that Late Abdul Rahman, the husband of the present petitioner, failed to pay rent from the month of August, 1980, and therefore he became a defaulter and moreover, after his demise, his family members used the suit premises roughly causing damage to a considerable part of it. The petitioner/defendant, accordingly, appeared and filed their written statement in the suit denying all the allegations made in the plaint and stated interalia that the suit is barred by principle of res judicata in view of the judgment passed in T.A. No. 03/1996, passed by the learned Civil Judge Senior Division, Dibrugarh, arising out of T.S. S No. 52/1993. The learned Munsiff No. 2, Dibrugarh, vide its judgment and decree dated 11.12.2013, decreed the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff holding that the plaintiff indeed has bonafide requirement of the suit premises.

5. Against the said judgment and decree dated 11.12.2013, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Dibrugarh, the petitioner/defendant preferred an appeal before the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh, which was registered as T.A. No. 07/2014. But, the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh, vide its judgment and decree dated 14.08.2017, affirmed the judgment passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Dibrugarh.

6. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree, dated 14.08.2017, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh, the petitioner has preferred the present civil revision petition on the following grounds, amongst others:

(i) That the learned Courts below has committed grave error in law as well as in facts while passing the judgment and decree and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside and quashed.

(ii) That the learned Courts below have erred in law while decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent/ plaintiff by deciding the issue No. 2 in favour of the plaintiff inasmuch as the respondent/company/ plaintiff once filed suit for ejectment against the present defendants on the ground of defaulter and bona fide requirement, which was dismissed by the learned Munsiff on 02.01.1996, and therefore, the subsequent suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff/company is barred by law of resjudicata. But the learned Courts below, without even considering the pleadings of the parties, passed the judgment in T.S. No. 52/1993 and in appeal filed by the r