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.

JUDGMENT :

Devashis Baruah, J.

Heard Mr. A. M. Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. S. Sattar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. This is an application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, ‘the Code’) read with Section 151 of the Code challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2024 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (for short, ‘the learned First Appellate Court’) in Title Appeal No.10/2022 by which, the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2022 passed by the Court of the learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (for short, ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Title Suit No.242/2014 was affirmed.

3. 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 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.”

4. In the backdrop of the above proposition of law settled by the Supreme Court, a question arises as to whether this Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction. For that purpose, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant application.

5. For the sake of convenience, th