Sri Bhanu Pratap Nath vs Xxxxxxx And 2 Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 1360 Gua

Gauhati High Court

Sri Bhanu Pratap Nath vs Xxxxxxx And 2 Ors on 22 July, 2025

Author: Devashis Baruah

Bench: Devashis Baruah

                                                               Page No.# 1/11

GAHC010022812025




                                                         undefined

                      THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
  (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

                         Case No. : CRP/29/2025

         ON THE DEATH OF SMTI. KIRAN RANI NATH HER LEGAL HEIR BHANU
         PRATAP NATH
         ASSAM

         1.1: SRI BHANU PRATAP NATH
          S/O LATE HARENDRA KUMAR NATH
          R/O RADHARAMAN SARANI
          ETKHOLA
          SILCHAR TOWN
          P.O. AND P.S. SILCHAR
          DISTRICT- CACHAR
         ASSAM. PIN- 788001

         VERSUS

         XXXXXXX AND 2 ORS.
         ASSAM

         2:SHRI DEBOJYOTI DEB
          SON OF - LATE JYOTIRMOY DEB

         RESIDENT OF RAHAMANPATTY
         MALUGRAM

         SILCHAR TOWN
         PARGANA- BARAKPAR

         DISTRICT- CACHAR
         ASSAM
         PIN CODE- 788001.

         3:SMTI UMA DEB @ ANJELA DEB
         WIFE OF - SHRI DEBOJYOTI DEB
                                                                 Page No.# 2/11

          RESIDENT OF RAHAMANPATTY
          MALUGRAM

          SILCHAR TOWN
          PARGANA- BARAKPAR

          DISTRICT- CACHAR
          ASSAM
          PIN CODE- 788001

For the petitioners    : Mr. S. Nath, Advocate

For the respondents    : Mr. D. Chakraborty, Advocate

                                BEFORE
          HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH

                         Date of Hearing         : 22.07.2025

                         Date of Judgment        : 22.07.2025
                      JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL)

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, Page No.# 3/11

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 Page No.# 4/11

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 were before the learned Trial Court.

6. The record reveals that the respondent Nos.2 & 3 along with their mother jointly filed a suit before the learned Trial Court Page No.# 5/11

which was registered and numbered as Title Suit No.119/2014. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner herein was the defendant in the said suit. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs in the said suit that the defendant was a monthly tenant in respect of a shop room which has been described in the Schedule to the plaint since 01.06.1990. The allegations made therein are that the defendant did not make payment of the rent since October, 2013. In addition to that, the plaintiffs also mentioned specifically in paragraph No.11 to the plaint that the said suit premises was required for bonafide use of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs also sought for recovery of the rent for the period from October, 2013 till the date of filing of the suit as well as any other relief or reliefs to which the plaintiffs were entitled to.

7. The defendant filed her written statement wherein various pleas were taken as regards the maintainability of the suit. On the aspect pertaining to default in payment of rent from October, 2013 till the date of filing of the suit as alleged in the plaint, the defendant averred that the defendant duly made the payment to the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs accepted that amount but did not issue receipt. However, for the month of June, 2014, the plaintiffs did not receive the rent, and it is under such circumstances, on 15.07.2014, the defendant deposited the rent in the Court. On the aspect pertaining to bonafide requirement, it Page No.# 6/11

was averred that the plaintiffs did not have bonafide requirement of the suit premises.

8. The record reveals that the learned Trial Court framed as many as 6 issues which being relevant are reproduced herein under:-

1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

2. Whether the suit is barred by law of Limitation?

3. Whether the plaintiff is in bonafide requirement of the suit premises as described in the schedule of the plaint?

4. Whether the defendant has defaulted in payment of rent in respect of the suit premises since October, 2013?

5. Whether the defendant is liable to pay arrear of rent to the plaintiff from the month of October 2013 to June 2014 at the rate of Rs.500/- per month?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for?

9. On behalf of the plaintiffs, four witnesses were examined and certain documentary evidence were exhibited. On behalf of the defendant, she adduced herself as the defendant witness and further exhibited various documents.

10. The learned Trial Court while deciding the Issue No.4 came to a categorical finding that the defendant was a defaulter in paying rent taking into account that the defendant failed to prove Page No.# 7/11

that the defendant had paid the rent for the months from October, 2013 onwards, and further to that, the learned Trial Court also came to a categorical finding that there was no proof in respect to deposit of rent before the Court in terms with Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (for short, 'the Act of 1972'). On the aspect pertaining to bonafide requirement, the learned Trial Court came to a finding that the plaintiffs have bonafide requirement of the suit premises. As the two Issues were decided in favour of the plaintiffs, the suit was decreed vide the judgment and decree dated 14.06.2023.

11. Being aggrieved, the defendant preferred an Appeal being Title Appeal No.07/2023. The learned First Appellate Court upheld the decision in respect to Issue No.4 which pertained to as to whether the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent. However, the learned First Appellate Court interfered with the decision in so far as the Issue No.3 which pertained to as to whether the plaintiffs had bonafide requirement of the suit premises. However, taking into account that one of the grounds for eviction as stipulated under Section 5 of the Act of 1972 having been proved, the Appeal was dismissed thereby upholding the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court vide the impugned judgment and decree dated Page No.# 8/11

12.11.2024. It is under such circumstances, the present revision proceedings have been initiated.

12. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties and has also perused the materials on record including the LCR which has been duly received.

13. From the materials on record, it would be seen that both the Courts below in respect to Issue No.4 have come to a categorical finding that the defendant has failed to prove that the defendant had paid the rent for the period from October, 2013 till the date of filing of the suit. These are findings of facts and the question of interference with those findings of facts can only be permissible while exercising revisional jurisdiction subject to the petitioner herein showing that there is perversity in the findings of facts so arrived at by the Court of facts.

14. From the submissions so made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and also from the materials on record nothing could be shown that the findings so arrived at by the learned Court of facts in respect to Issue No.4 is perverse.

15. Consequently, it is therefore the opinion of this Court that the question of interference with the said findings in respect to the Issue No.4 does not arise. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree dated 12.11.2024 passed in Title Appeal Page No.# 9/11

No.07/2023 is upheld.

16. This Court is not unmindful of the fact that the respondents have been deprived of the enjoyment of the suit premises even after establishing that the petitioner herein is a defaulter. On the other hand, the petitioner herein had been running a business establishment and naturally if the petitioner is ousted immediately, it would result in great difficulties. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner can be granted 6(six) months time for shifting business from the suit premises subject, however, to furnishing undertaking before the learned Trial Court.

17. Accordingly, this Court observes that the petitioner can be granted time to occupy the suit premises till 22.01.2026, subject to filing undertaking before the learned Trial Court on or before 08.08.2025, which should contain the following:

a) That the defendant/petitioner shall vacate the suit premises described in the Schedule to the plaint on or before 22.01.2026.

b) That the defendant/petitioner would not create any third party rights or do any act which would impact/prejudice the rights of the plaintiffs/respondents herein in respect to the suit premises.

c) The defendant/petitioner shall pay in the form of Page No.# 10/11

compensation an amount of Rs.500/- per month to the respondents. This payment under no circumstances shall create any right and/or interest over the suit premises and shall also not create any land-lord tenant relationship.

18. It is observed that if the undertaking is not filed before the learned Trial Court by the defendant/petitioner on or before 08.08.2025, the respondents herein shall be entitled to proceed with the execution.

19. It is also observed that the undertaking submitted before the learned Trial Court on the basis of the leave so granted would be construed as undertaking filed before this Court. Under such circumstances, if the terms of the undertaking are violated, it would not only entail consequences before the learned Executing Court, but also would amount to contempt of the order(s) passed by this Court.

20. This Court further observes that the respondents herein would be entitled to recovery of the rent for the period from the date of filing of the suit till 08.08.2025. For that purpose, the respondents herein would be at liberty to approach the learned Executing Court. The learned Executing Court shall by giving opportunity to both side decide on the entitlement after taking into consideration, how much amount had been deposited by the Page No.# 11/11

petitioner/defendant during the trial of the suit and till date before the Court. It shall be the burden of the defendant/petitioner to prove the amount deposited.

21. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that the respondents herein, who are the plaintiffs had been unnecessarily deprived of the enjoyment of the tenanted premises and on account of the various judicial proceedings there has been a considerable delay. Under such circumstances, as the instant petition is completely vexatious and meritless, this Court imposes a cost of Rs.11,000/-, (Rupees Eleven Thousand) only upon the petitioner. The said amount of Rs.11,000/- (Rupees eleven thousand) should be deposited before the learned Trial Court along with the undertaking.

22. Interim order, if any, stands vacated in view of the directions as given hereinabove.

23. Revision petition, accordingly, stands dismissed subject to the observation(s) as made hereinabove.

24. LCR be returned back.

JUDGE

Comparing Assistant