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 requirement.

JUDGMENT :

(DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.)

Heard Mr. A. Sattar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The present proceedings has been filed by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”) challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2018 passed in Title Appeal No. 21/2017 by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Nalbari (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned First Appellate Court”) thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2017 passed by the learned Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Nalbari (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) in T.S. Case No. 46/2015, as a result, the appeal filed by the respondents herein was allowed, and a decree for eviction was passed against the petitioner herein.

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 reported in (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 C