The court clarified that revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappraisal of evidence, affirming the lower courts' findings on bona fide requirement and rent default.

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 revisional jurisdiction was explained. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dilbahar Singh reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78, the Supreme Court in paragraph 43 observed as under:

“43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court/first appellate authority because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the court/authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the court/authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by court/authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.”

4. In the backdrop of the above proposition of law well settled, let this Court take up as to whether the petitioner herein has been able to make out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lakhimpur, at North Lakhimpur (hereinafter, referred to as the learned fist appellate Court), in Title Appeal No. 12/2023. For adjudging the said aspect, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant proceedings.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein, are referred to, in the same status, as they stood before the learned trial Court.

6. The respondent herein, as plaintiff, instituted a suit being