Back
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Mahadev Kirtonia S/o Late Narayan Kirtonia – Appellant
Versus
Chandra Sarkar S/o Late Suren Sarkar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.
Heard Mr. G. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. N. Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent.
2. This is an application filed by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2024 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned First Appellate Court”) in Title Appeal No. 01/2023 whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) in Title Suit No. 112/2015 was confirmed.
3. The question arises, as to whether, in the present facts this Court is required to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. To ascertain the said question, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant revision petition.
4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to in the same status as they stood before the learned Trial Court.
5. The petitioner herein a
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 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....
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 tenant's obligation to provide evidence for rent payment is essential; failure results in judicial affirmation of eviction due to non-payment.
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.
Petitioners to continue in possession of suit premises till 30.04.2022 is based upon undertaking of petitioners to vacate suit premises within said period and if petitioner fails to adhere to same, R....
In a suit where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent, it is the burden of the defendant to prove that there was no default committed by the defendant, who is the tena....
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
