This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.2.8 passed by the learned District Judge, Sibsagar in Title Appeal No. 38 of 1985. 2. Plaintiff-petitioner instituted Title Suit No.24 of 1974 in the Court of the Munsiff, Sibsagar for ejectment of the defendant-opposite party, who was inducted as tenant in respect of the suit premises on the ground of bonafide requirements, namely, the suit house requires reconstruction and/or thorough repair and also that the plaintiff bonafide requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation. Admittedly, the defendant-opposite party is the tenant of the suit premises and the plaintiff is the landlord and the tenancy is governed by the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. 3. The defendant-opposite party contested the suit by filing written statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint. In the course of hearing, the learned trial Court issued a Commission appointing the SDO, PWD to submit report about the condition of the suit premises after spot verification. The SDO submitted report after spot verification. No objection was made against the report and the same was accepted by the learned 'trial Court. As per the report, the house was old and needed immediate reconstr­uction. As per the report of the SDO most of the timber posts of the suit house had been eaten at the junction of the ground level keeping no link with its footing and the house was not at all safe for habitation. 4. On the pleadings as many as 9 issues were framed of which we are concerned only with the issue No.3, which is as follows - "3. Whether the suit house is old and under unhygenic condition and whether the plaintiff wants the house for repair or reconstruction and for own use and occupation? The learned Munsiff, by the judgment and decree dated 29.3.84 decided the Issue No. 3 in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit. 5. The defendant-opposite party impugned the said judgment and decree in Title Appeal No. 38 of 1985. The learned appellate Court below by the impugned judgment and decree held that evidence on record does not show that the suit building in question was in dilapidated condition requiring immediate demolition thereof in order to effect re-construction. 5. The defendant-opposite party impugned the said judgment and decree in Title Appeal No. 38 of 1985. The learned appellate Court below by the impugned judgment and decree held that evidence on record does not show that the suit building in question was in dilapidated condition requiring immediate demolition thereof in order to effect re-construction. Learned appellate Court below also held that the plaintiff failed to prove his bona-fide requirement of the suit premises and on the basis of the finding reversed the decision of the learned Munsiff in Issue No.3 and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has approached this Court in this revision petition. 6. I have heard Mr. N. M. Lahiri, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. J. N. Sarma, learned counsel for the opposite party. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned appellate Court below failed to exercise jurisdiction vested in law in not taking into consideration that under section 5 (1) (c) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, a landlord is entitled to a decree for eviction of the tenant for repair of the house in occupation of the tenant, and that undisputedly the materials on record established that the suit house requires thorough repair, if not reconstruction. The learned appellate Court below thus misconstrued the provisions of section 5 (l)(c) of the Act and has illegally reversed the decision of the learned trial Court only on the narrow ground that the materials on record might have established that the suit house needs repair, but did not establish that the suit house was in such a delapidated condition which required demolition for reconstruction. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that report of the SDO that the suit house needs immediate repair is corroborated by admitted documents annexed to the petition as Annexures 5.6,7,10 and 11. 7. During the pendency of the petition, an application has been filed contending that the defendant-opposite party has defaulted in payment of rent for a considerable period. 7. During the pendency of the petition, an application has been filed contending that the defendant-opposite party has defaulted in payment of rent for a considerable period. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the defendant-opposite party having defaulted in payment of rent for 3 years during the pendency of the litigation, the defendant-opposite party is liable to be evicted for making default in payment of monthly rent inasmuch as, protection to the tenant under sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, is available so long the tenant continues to pay rent and performs the conditions of tenancy. 8. Mr. J.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the defendant-opposite party on the other hand, submits that the finding of the learned appellate Court below that the plaintiff failed to establish that the suit premises bonafide required by him, being a finding of fact, this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 CPC can not interfere with the said finding. Mr. Sarma submits that the whole case of the plaintiff for a decree for eviction is for reconstruction of the house, and as such, the learned appellate Court below is right in holding that ejectment of the tenant-opposite party was not necessary since the materials on record did not establish that the suit house was to be demolished and reconstruction is to be made. As regards the submissions on the subsequent event, that is, default in payment of rent, Mr. Sarma submits that this plea is tentamount to making out a new case, which cannot be entertained in the present civil revision. 9. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner as well as on behalf of the opposite party. Undoubtedly, this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction cannot interfere with the finding of fact as to whether the landlord required the suit house bonafide or not. But if the Court of fact arrives at the finding on consideration of irrelevant facts ignoring the relevant facts and the provisions of law applicable on the facts established by evidences on record, such failure is a failure to exercise jurisdiction and this Court can certainly interfere with the finding in the exercise of jurisdiction under section 115 CPC. But if the Court of fact arrives at the finding on consideration of irrelevant facts ignoring the relevant facts and the provisions of law applicable on the facts established by evidences on record, such failure is a failure to exercise jurisdiction and this Court can certainly interfere with the finding in the exercise of jurisdiction under section 115 CPC. In the instant case, it is not disputed that the materials on records clearly established that the suit house requires thorough repair and it was not fit for human habitation. The learned appellate Court below, however, reversed the decision of the trial Court on the ground that from the evidences on record it was not established that the suit house was in a dilapidated condition requiring demolition and reconstruction. It is clear from the provisions of section 5 (1) (c) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act that a decree for eviction of the tenant may be passed, if from the materials on records a Court is satisfied that - (i) the landlord requires the tenanted premises bonafide for repair or for rebuilding of the suit house in occupation of the tenant and (ii) for his own use and occupation. So, if the landlord can establish that he requires the suit premises bonafide for repairing of the suit house, he is entitled to get a decree for eviction of the tenant. So also, if he could satisfy the Court that he requires the suit premises for reconstruction of the suit house in occupation of the tenant, he is entitled to get a decree for eviction of the tenant. It is for the landlord to decide whether he should thoroughly repair the suit house or reconstruct it after getting the tenant evicted from the suit premises, inasmuch as, in a given case reconstruction of the suit house may be more convenient and economic than thorough repair of an old one building. As such, I have no hesitation to hold that the learned appellate Court below failed to exercise jurisdiction duly vested in law in not taking into consideration the facts established by materials on record. Under the provision of section 5(1)(c) of the Act, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for eviction of the defendant, and that failure has vitiated the decision. Under the provision of section 5(1)(c) of the Act, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for eviction of the defendant, and that failure has vitiated the decision. However, the finding of the learned appellate Court below that the plaintiff failed to establish that be requires the suit house bonafide for his own use and occupation is based on appreciation of evidences on record and this finding can not be disturbed in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. For the reason stated above, the petition is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned appellate Court below is set aside. The suit is of 1974. Long 16 years have already passed. Ordinarily, the appeal would have been remanded to the learned appellate Court below for disposal thereof. However, it is not disputed that in the instant case the materials on records has established that the suit house needs immediate repair for which the plaintiff bonafide requires the suit premises. As such, remand of the appeal for disposal is a mere formality and that will cause further delay of disposal of the proceeding after 16 years of protracted litigation. As such, for the ends of justice I do not feel inclined to remand the appeal to the learned appellate Court below for final disposal thereof. The impugned judgment and decree having been set aside, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is restord to the extent that the plaintiff's suit is decreed for eviction of defendant for repair and/or rebuilding of the suit house and after completion of repairing or rebuilding, the defendant-tenant would be entitled to restoration of possession, provided he fulfils the conditions of tenancy. I make no order to costs.