Back
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Devashis Baruah
Prabhudayal Agarwala @ Prabhudayal Patowari S/o Lt. Madanlal Agarwala – Appellant
Versus
Guru Singh Sabha (SGSS) – Respondent
JUDGMENT AND ORDER :
Heard Mr S Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr D Chakraborty, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent.
2. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”), has been invoked to challenge the Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2024, passed in Title Appeal No. 12/2023, by the learned Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur, at North Lakhimpur, whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner herein, was dismissed, thereby affirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29.09.2023, passed by the learned Court of the Munsiff No. 1 at Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, in Title Suit No. 18/2017. Taking into account that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the parameters of the revisional jurisdiction within which the instant proceedings is required to be adjudicated.
3. For the purpose of deciding as to whether this Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction against the impugned judgment and decree, this Court finds it relevant to refer to the Judgment of the Supreme Court, wherein the scope of the r
The court clarified that revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappraisal of evidence, affirming the lower courts' findings on bona fide requirement and rent default.
The court upheld that factual findings by lower courts are not subject to re-evaluation unless proven perverse, emphasizing the tenant's consistent rent default.
Revisional jurisdiction cannot re-evaluate facts but ensures lower court decisions are free from legal errors; findings of default in rent by the defendant upheld.
The court upheld the findings of fact regarding tenant default and bona fide requirement, allowing the tenant to retain possession under specific conditions until a set date.
The tenant's obligation to provide evidence for rent payment is essential; failure results in judicial affirmation of eviction due to non-payment.
The court emphasized that revisional jurisdiction does not allow for reevaluation of factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous or unjust, affirming the original findings of bona fide require....
It is no longer res integra that it is the burden of the defendant to prove that he had not defaulted in payment of rent in order to get the protection under section 5 (1) of Assam Urban Area Rent Co....
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.
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
