IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
DEVASHIS BARUAH
On the death of smti. Kiran Rani Nath Her Legal Heir Bhanu Pratap Nath – Appellant
Versus
....... – Respondent
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 wit
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....
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 clarified that revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappraisal of evidence, affirming the lower courts' findings on bona fide requirement and rent default.
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.
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....
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 affirmed that a landlord's bonafide requirement for premises is valid, and the tenant's irregular rent payments constitute default.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.