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.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. S. Nath, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. D. Chakraborty, the learned counsel who appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.2 & 3.

2. The petitioner herein has assailed the judgment and decree dated 12.11.2024 passed in Title Appeal No.07/2023 whereby the learned Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.2, Cachar Silchar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned First Appellate Court’) had upheld the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2023 passed by the learned Court of the Munsiff No.4, Cachar, Silchar (hereinafter referred to as ‘the learned Trial Court’) in Title Suit No.119/2014.

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 legal proposition of law, this Court now finds it relevant to take into consideration whether in the facts of the instant case, the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is at all called for. For that purpose, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which have led to the filing of the instant revision proceedings.

5. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to in the same status as they