Gauhati High Court
Case No. : Crp/116/2023 vs Suprabha Bordoloi on 16 August, 2023
Page No.# 1/4
GAHC010161222023
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP/116/2023
DIPTI REKHA SARMA
W/O- SHRI PRANAB SARMA,
R/O- COL. SIVARAM BORA ROAD,
KHARGULI, P.S.- LATASIL,
GUWAHATI- 781004,
DIST.- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.
VERSUS
SUPRABHA BORDOLOI
W/O- SRI BHUBAN BORDOLOI,
R/O WARD NO. 11 (NEW), M.C. ROAD,
GUWAHATI CLUB, GUWAHATI- 781003,
DISTRICT- KAMRUP(M), ASSAM.
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR P UPADHYAY
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. P K BORDOLOI
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MEDHI
ORDER
16-08-2023
Heard Shri P. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner whereas Shri A. Ikbal,
learned counsel is present for the respondent.
2. The instant revision petition has been preferred against a judgment dated
28.04.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) in Title Appeal No.
1/2021 by which the appeal has been dismissed and the judgment and order dated
23.12.2020 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup (M) in TS No. 274/2016 has
Page No.# 2/4
been affirmed. The petitioner was the defendant in the suit which was instituted by
the present respondent as plaintiff for ejectment on the grounds of bona fide
requirement as well as defaulter.
3. The learned Trial Court vide the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2020 had
decreed the suit in favour of the respondent plaintiff and directed ejectment on both
the grounds. Against the aforesaid judgment and decree, the petitioner had preferred
the aforesaid appeal which has also been dismissed by the learned Civil Judge No. 1,
Kamrup (M) vide the impugned judgment dated 28.04.2023.
4. Shri Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
findings arrived at by the learned Munsiff which have been concurred by the Appellate
Court are inconsistant with the materials on record. He submits that rent was being
deposited in the Court in various NJ cases and therefore, the question of decreeing
the suit on the ground of defaulter could not have arisen. He submits that the findings
regarding bona fide requirement are also not in accordance with law.
5. On the other hand, Shri Ikbal, learned counsel for the respondent has at the
outset submitted that under the Urban Areas Rent Control Act, there is no provision
for filing any second appeal and it is only because of the said restriction that recourse
under Section 115 of the CPC is taken. He submits that powers of revision are to be
exercised with circumspection and unless there is jurisdictional error or blatant
illegality or irregularity in the judgment, a Court exercising powers of revision would
be loath to interfere. He submits that so far as the instant case is concerned, though
the projection made on behalf of the petitioner is that rents were deposited in the
Court in various NJ Cases, the same was not preceded by any tendering of the rent
and such tendering was not proved in the Court which is required under the settled
principles of law. He further submits that on the aspect of bona fide requirement, it is
a settled principle that the landlord is the best Judge and the requirement can be best
Page No.# 3/4
assessed by the landlord.
6. The rival submissions have been considered.
7. This Court in exercise of powers under Section 115 of the CPC Acts as a Court of
supervision wherein the primary object is to see whether the judgment impugned
suffers from any jurisdictional error. In the Instant case, there is no such jurisdictional
error. The other aspects which are to be taken into consideration is as to whether the
findings arrived at have been done by taking into consideration the relevant factors or
irrelevant factors have been taken into consideration. On both the aspects, the
judgment passed by the learned Munsiff which has been affirmed by the Appellate
Court appears to have been passed by taking into consideration the materials on
record and the evidence adduced by the rival parties, more specifically by the plaintiff
to establish the grounds of default in payment of rent as well as the aspect of bona
fide requirement. The aspect of bona fide requirement is an aspect which should be
best left to the assessment of the landlord. It is a different aspect altogether that if
such requirement is not bona fide and has been raised only as a means to evict.
However, in the instant case, the requirement appears to be bona fide and therefore
there is hardly any scope for interference by this Court in exercise of powers under
Section 115 of the CPC. As regards the ground of default in payment of rent, mere
fact of depositing the rent in the Court in various NJ cases without establishing that
such rent was first tendered to the landlord and refused, the same would not be a
valid defense for a defendant in such a case.
8. Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of the discussion made
above, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference is made out.
9. At this stage, Shri Upadhyay, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
the tenancy was existing since the year 2004 and therefore, in case this petition is
dismissed, a reasonable period be granted to the petitioner to vacate the suit
Page No.# 4/4
property.
10. Shri Ikbal, the learned counsel for the respondent however fairly submits that a
reasonable period may be granted which should not be more than 4 (four) months
and accordingly a direction be granted to vacate the premises by the end of
December, 2023.
11. After considering the aforesaid aspect, this Court is of the view that while the
present petition is dismissed, interest of justice would be served if the petitioner is
granted a reasonable time to vacate the premises which in the opinion of this Court is
fixed to be a period of 6 (six) months from today. To avoid any ambiguity, such
vacation should be done on or before 16.02.2024.
12. Petition accordingly stands dismissed with the aforesaid observation.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
