Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Devashis Baruah
Dipak Sanyal S/O Lt Dilip Kumar Sanyal – Appellant
Versus
Narayan Kejriwal S/O Lt Matadin Kejriwal – Respondent
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.
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.
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....
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....
The court clarified that revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappraisal of evidence, affirming the lower courts' findings on bona fide requirement and rent default.
Sub-Clauses (a) and (b) of Section 115 of Code is in reference to exercise of jurisdiction by Court not vested in Court by law or has failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested in Court.
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 affirmed that a landlord's bonafide requirement for premises is valid, and the tenant's irregular rent payments constitute default.
Suit for realisation of the arrear rent for the period of the eviction proceedings would result in failure of justice as well as nullify the proposition of law that the tenant is bound to pay rent du....
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
