This revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment and decree dated 23.2.89 passed by the Assistant District Judge No.1, Guwahati, in Title Appeal No. 28 of 1985 dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 8.7.85 passed by the Munsiff No.2, Guwahati in Title Suit No. 31 of 1984. 2. The opposite party is the owner of the suit premises and the first petitioner was her tenant. He carries on business under the name and style of the second petitioner. The first petitioner took a flat, described in the schedule of the plaint, from the opposite party on rent of Rs. 450/- per month excluding the electricity charge of Rs.80/- per month. The petitioner became defaulter from the month of December, 1982. The opposite r>arty also required the suit premises for her grand-son to start a business. During the trial, the opposite party adduced evidence to the effect that the petitioners were defaulters and also the opposite party bonafide required the demise property for her grand-son. The trial Court being satisfied from the evidence produced in the Court decreed the suit holding that the opposite party bonafide required the demise property and also |he petitioners were defaulters. Against this, the petitioners preferred an appeal before the Assistant District Judge No. 1, Guwahati which was later on transferred to Assistant District Judge No.2, Guwahati. After hearing the parties, the Assistant District Judge, No.2 dismissed the appeal holding that the petitioners were defaulters. Hence, the present petition. 3. The ground taken in the present petition, interalia, are that the trial Court at the time of institution of suit had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit and also that the rent of the demise premises was only Rs. 225/- and not Rs. 450/- and the electricity charge was Rs.25/- per month. These are the main two grounds in the appeal. 4. Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioners has urged these two grounds and has further submitted that the Courts below were not justified in decreeing the suit holding that the petitioners were defaulters and besides, that the trial Court at the time of institution of the suit had no pecuniary jurisdiction to try the suit. Therefore, the subsequent stage of the suit was bad in law and the Court had no jurisdiction to pass any order granting the decree. 5. Mr.
Therefore, the subsequent stage of the suit was bad in law and the Court had no jurisdiction to pass any order granting the decree. 5. Mr. J.N. Sarma, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted that the rent was Rs. 450/- per month and not Rs. 225/- and this was concluded by the finding of fact and this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure may not interfere with the finding of facts. Mere perusal of the judgment and the grounds taken in the revision petition would show that the contention of Mr. Sarma has sufficient force. Therefore, I hold that this ground is not maintainable in a revision petition. 6. The second submission of Mr. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner was that the Court had initially no jurisdiction to entertain the suit in as much as at the time of institution of the suit the Munsiff had the pecuniary jurisdiction of Rs. 5000/- only. Mr. Sarma, learned counsel has submitted that the plea of pecuniary jurisdiction was not taken by the defendants/petitioners at the initial stage and because of that no issue was framed by the trial Court. This plea was taken only at the appellate stage, which was not at all entertainable. 7. The appellate Court rejected this ground as per the provision of subsection (2) of section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Mr. Sarma has placed reliance on two decisions : Koopilan Uneen's daughter Pathumma vs. Koopilan Uneen's son Kauntalan Kutty, AIR 1981 SC 1683 and Anil Barman vs. Mrs. Kironmayee Medhi, 1987 GHC 195. 8. In Pathumma vs. Kuntalan Kutty (supra) the Supreme Court quoting section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure has observed that an objection to the place of suing may be entertained by an appellate or revisional Court, on the fulfilment of the following three conditions:- (1) The objection was taken in the Court of first instance, (2) It was taken at the earliest possible opportunity and in cases where issues are settled, at or before such settlement; (3) There has been a consequent failure of justice. In the absence of any of the above conditions, the objection regarding the jurisdiction is not sustainable. 9. In Anil Barman vs. Mrs.
In the absence of any of the above conditions, the objection regarding the jurisdiction is not sustainable. 9. In Anil Barman vs. Mrs. Kironmayee Medhi (supra) this Court also following the decision of the Supreme Court has held that without fulfilling the conditions mentioned by the Apex Court, the objection regarding the jurisdiction as contemplated under section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure is not sustainable. 10. Following the decisions mentioned hereinabove, I hold that this revision petition has no force and is liable to be dismissed and I accordingly dismiss the petition. In the result the petition is dismissed with cost through out.