MANAS KAMAL BHOWAL Vs. SATYENDRA CH. GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure raises important questions concerning the Court's perimeter to interpret the provisions of section 5(1)(c) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1967-(Shortly "the Act") which confers jurisdiction upon the Court to pass a decree for eviction of the tenant from the premises of the landlord in a legal action for eviction.

(2.) The plaintiff opposite party sought for eviction of defendant petitioner from the premises as described in schedule to the plaint and instituted a Title Suit No. 25 of 1971 in the Court of Munsiff at Jorhat. The Defendant-petitioner contested the claim of the plaintiff-opposite party but it was in vain. On contest, the defendant lost his stand in the suit. Consequent thereof, the decree or eviction was passed against him. He then preferred an appeal in the Court of the Assistant District Judge at Jorhat which was numbered as Title Appeal No. 12 of 1973 questioning the validity and legality of the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court. The defendant had to face the same fate as the learned appellant Court dismissed appeal. The defendant did not lose his confidence. He has preferred this revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and sought for an interference by this Court. The plaintiff is the opposite party in this revision application before this Court. The law as to the limitation of revisional power of the High Court is well-settled. The revisional power is limited. The High Court cannot interfere even if the Court below commits an error of law or facts. But the High Court certainly can lay its hand upon any decision and order of the Court below if in deciding a matter, the lower court or the appellate court, as the case may be, decides it in (sic) breach of provision of law or commits a procedural error. Mr. J.P. Bhattacharjee, the learned Advocate General of Nagaland who represents the petitioner in this court has urged that the lower appellate Court has committed two illegalities, namely, decided the case against the petitioner by committing a breach of statutory provision of law and has also committed an error in violation of the established and settled principle of procedure. The learned Counsel has further urged that on a procedural error coupled with wrong interpretation of law the High Court in exercising the revisional jurisdiction can certainly set aside the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court.

(3.) In this petition, the petitioner has challenged the legality of the judgment and decree of the learned first appellate Court passed in Title Appeal No. 12 of 1973, dated 19.3.76 on the ground of wrong interpretation of law amounting to illegal exercise of jurisdiction not vested in it under the provisions of law.