Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting jurisdictional errors or clearly perverse findings. Courts cannot re-appreciate evidence to substitute their own conclusions for concurrent factual findings of lower courts, unless the decision-making process is fundamentally irrational or unsupported by any acceptable evidence.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. A. Sattar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This application, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been filed by the petitioner, namely, M/s Assam (Trade) Agency, represented by its partner Shri Yashpal Chachra, impugning the judgment and decree dated 28.06.2019, passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup (M), in Title Appeal No. 120/2016, whereby the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2016, passed by the Court of the learned Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati in Title Suit No. 185/2013 was upheld.

3. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant revision petition, in brief, are that the present respondent and his brother are the absolute owners of an RCC building situated on a plot of land covered by Dag No. 433 under K.P. Patta No. 268 of Village Seher, Guwahati Part-III, under Guwahati Metropolitan District Kamrup(M). In Pursuant to a partition between the brothers, the present respondent received, in his share, the entire second floor of the building as well as the RCC hall in the ground floor of the same building.

4. The respondent let out the said RCC hall on rent to the present petitioner at an initial rent of Rs.3,500/- (Rupees Three Thousand Five Hundred only) per month, payable within the first week of every month. The tenancy period was from 12.08.2002 till the end of August 2007, i.e., for a period of five years and a written tenancy agreement to that effect was executed between the parties on 12.08.2002.

5. As per the terms of the tenancy agreement, the present petitioner paid an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- (Rupees One Lakh Twenty-Five Thousand) as advance rent to the respondent. The said advance amount has to be adjusted towards the monthly rent of the tenanted premises at the rate of Rs.1,000/- per month.

6. At the end of the tenancy period, i.e., in August 2007, the present petitioner requested the respondent to renew the tenancy agreement for a further period of five years. The respondent was initially reluctant to extend the tenancy agreement as he required the suit premises for starting a business being an unemployed youth at that time. However, upon the request of the present petitioner, the respondent agreed to extend the tenancy for another period of five years with effect from 01.09.2007 till the end of August 2012. A written agreement to that effect was executed on 01.10.2007 at a rent of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) per month.

7. Thereafter, on expiry of the second extension of tenancy agreement on 31.08.2012, the respondent asked the present petitioner to vacate the tenanted premises as he bona fide required the said premises for starting a business there. When the petitioner did not vacate the suit premises, the respondent filed a title suit for eviction of the present petitioner from the suit premises. The said suit was registered as Title Suit No. 185/2013, before the Court of Munsiff No.2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati.

8. The present petitioner contested the suit by filing a written statement, wherein the plea of bona fide requirement raised by the present respondent was denied. It was further stated that the respondent had attempted to forcibly evict the pe