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.

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 as plaintiff instituted a suit which was registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 112/2015 seeking declaration that the plaintiff is a tenant under the defendant; for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from letting out the suit room that is described in Schedule-A to the Plaint to any other person and for declaration that the plaintiff shall not be dispossessed or evicted from the suit room without following the due procedure of law.

6. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had taken the suit room on rent initially at a monthly rent of Rs. 900/- and subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.1800/- per month. He further stated that he had paid an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as advance to the defendant at the time of taking the room which is yet to be adjusted. On 26.02.2014, when the plaintiff opened the shutter to the suit room he could find the entire materials inside the room were reduced to ashes in fire. The plaintiff alleged that it was the defendant who was responsible and apprehending that the defendant would forcibly evict the plaintiff from the suit room, the suit was filed seeking for the reliefs as mentioned herein above.

7. The defendant filed a written statement cum counter-claim wherein the defendant raised the plea that the plaintiff is a defaulter in payment of rent. It was mentioned that though there was an advance amount of Rs. 30,000/- paid, but the said amount have already been adjusted till June, 2014. It is the specific plea of the defendant that the plaintiff was a defaulter in payment of rent from the month of July, 2014. On the question of bona fide requirement it was also mentioned in the written statement cum counter-claim that the said suit room was required for the children of the defendant who wants to carry out some business.

8. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed as many as 6 (six) issues which being relevant are reproduced herein under.

“1) Whether the plaintiff is a lawful tenant under the defendant?

2) Whether the plaintiff has been paying the rent regularly to the defendant?

3) Whether the defendant has bonafide requirement for the suit premises?

4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for?

5) Whether the defendant is entitled to a decree in the counter-claim as prayed for?

6) What other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled?”

9. On behalf of the plaintiff, he adduced himself as a witness and also exhibited various documents. On behalf of the defendant, two witnesses were examined and the defendant also exhibited certain documentary evidence.

10. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and decreed the counter-claim of the defendant vide the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2022. In doing so, the learned Trial Court came to an opinion that the plaintiff was a