Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
DEVASHIS BARUAH
Dilip Kumar Kankaria S/o Late Kanchan Lal Kankaria – Appellant
Versus
Nathmall Rajkumar (HUF) – Respondent
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
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.
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....
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 court clarified that revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappraisal of evidence, affirming the lower courts' findings on bona fide requirement and rent default.
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....
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
