The tenant's obligation to provide evidence for rent payment is essential; failure results in judicial affirmation of eviction due to non-payment.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Todi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. G. Jalan, the 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 05.08.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as "the learned First Appellate Court") in Title Appeal No. 19/2017 whereby the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2015 passed by the learned Court of the Munsiff No. 4, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Title Suit No. 468/2012 was upheld.

3. At the outset, taking into account that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked, let this Court therefore take note of the scope of the said jurisdiction.

4. 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 , (2014) 9 SCC 78 , the Supreme Court in Paragraph No. 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 reappreciation 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.”

5. In the backdrop of the above proposition of law settled by the Supreme Court, a question arises, as to whether, this Co