This civil revision has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 16.1.87 passed by Assistant District Judge, Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 9 of 1986 upholding the judgment and decree dated 1.2.86 passed by the Munsiff No. 1, Karimganj m TO No. 187 of 1984. 2. The petitioner as plaintiff filed the suit for ejectment of respondent/ defendants and recovery of the khas possession on the ground of defaulter, oonafide requirement, for use and reconstruction and also for compensation. 3. Petitioner/plaintiffs case was that she purchased the suit property from one Bihari Chanda on 19.5.92 by a registered sate deed. The predecessor-in-interest of the defendant Nos. 1 and 4, Anil Das was admittedly tenant under the said Bihari, vendor of the petitioner. After such purchase petitioner instituted a suit for eviction of the respondents on the ground that the respondents were defaulter and the suit premises was required for use and:for compensation. Defendant No. S, Dev »n, the nephew of Anil Das was staying • with him and at times was managing the fair price shop of late Anil Das under the name and style of M/s Modern Trading. The name of the petitioner was mutated in ravenue records subsequent to purchase as she was also shown as the owner and the defendant as occupant in the Municipal record. 4. Respondent No. 5, as defendant No. 5 filed written stftement on his behalf and on behalf of the respondent No. 1 and contested the suit denying the title of the petitioner and set up a title for himself, claiming that he purchased the suit property by 'oral sale* at consideration of Rs. 3,000/-. As it appears it was the respondent No. 5 who had taken the case of the defendants who were the real heir of the late Anil Das, 5. In the evidence as came out on record it appears that the petitioner purchased the property of Bihari Lal including the suit property in the year 1952 (1359 B S) for consideration of Rs 15.000/- by a registered sale deed. It was also disclosed that said Biharilai entered into an agreement with the petitioner to stay on the suit property as a monthly tenant temporarily but no lease deed was executed. It was also disclosed that said Biharilai entered into an agreement with the petitioner to stay on the suit property as a monthly tenant temporarily but no lease deed was executed. Late Anil Das uncle of the respondent No. 5 was a tenant under said Biharilai in the suit holding and said late Anil Das, admittedly had a fair price shop and respondent No. 5 was an employee under him in the said fair price shop. Therefore respondent No. 5 used to stay with his uncle late Anil Das in the suit holding who was tenant under said Biharilai. Biharilal subsequently sold the suit property including the shop house (pucca wall house) to the petitioner as aforesaid. After such purchase late Anil Das paid rent to the petitioner as tenant till June, 1983. Said Biharilal died in 1962. It also appeared that as there was no lease deed between the petitioner and Biharilal, who defaulted the rent, petitioner filed money suit against Biharilal being MS No. 229 of 1953 (MS 26 of 1956), (Annexure A) which was decreed with costs for Rs. 1,500/- against Biharilal as defendant No. 1 and 2 others and relationship of landlord and tenants between the petitioners was established. In the written statement filed in the said money suit at para 8 (Ka) the defendant (Biharilal) stated that he with his brother (since deceased) defendant used to run a grocery shop in a portion of the said suit land and that they (Biharilal and his late brother) had had let out the other portion of the said suit holding to defendant No.4 and 5 ie Ali Das and Shri Saroj Kuraar Das respectively who had been paying rent to the contesting defendant (Biharilal and his brother) and they were still tenant under the said defendants in the money suit. 6. Evidence of respondent No. 5 as defendant 5 disclosed, as appeared in the record, that lie purchased the suit land by an oral agreement and paid Rs 3,000/-as consideration money. In examination-in-chief he denied the titie of the petitioner/ however, admitted Biharilal as original owner of the suit holding and that he entered the suit holding in 1952, having taken settlement from Biharilal. His further statements disclosed that the petitioner became owner of the property by purchase from Biharilal and that "she continued to be the owner till today." 7. In examination-in-chief he denied the titie of the petitioner/ however, admitted Biharilal as original owner of the suit holding and that he entered the suit holding in 1952, having taken settlement from Biharilal. His further statements disclosed that the petitioner became owner of the property by purchase from Biharilal and that "she continued to be the owner till today." 7. Being this position as discussed above the point for consideration arises - whether the respondents are estopped from challenging the title of Biharilal and consequently, petitioner, being the transferee of the suit holding. 8. The registered sale deed was executed in the year 1953, by Biharilal who also in-turn became the tenant of the petitioner after the sale which was established by the judgment in MS No. 26 of 1956. Respondent failed to justify his title except the oral agreement of purchase of the suit holding paying Rs. 3,000/-. He clearly admitted and entered into the suit holding with an arrangement with Biharilal. As came out in evidence the respondent 5 did not challenge the title of the plaintiff, nor the 'derivative' title of the plaintiff landlord as vendee of the suit land. In that view of the matter respondents were estopped to challenge the title of the landlord (relied on AIR 1990 SC 636 , Subhas Chand vs. Md. Sarif) 9. In view of* my above discussion the respondents being estopped from denying the title of the petitioner and admittedly not being paid rent, are not entitled to any protection under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act and is liable to be evicted. 10. The learned counsel for the respondents raised the last point by submitting that when both the Courts arrived concurrent finding, this Court on revision cannot interfere with such finding and there is no jurisdictional error of the Courts below. Now it is settled position of law that when Courts below acted erroneously and with errors apparent on the face of record which result, in grave injury and miscarriage of justice to a party, the revisional Court must interfere with the finding of facts even when there is a concurrent findings of Courts below. In this case it is apparent from the records that the Courts below did not appreciate the evidence on record and misdirected itself on point of law and therefore its findings can not be accepted. 11. In this case it is apparent from the records that the Courts below did not appreciate the evidence on record and misdirected itself on point of law and therefore its findings can not be accepted. 11. In the result the petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to be evicted and possession of the suit property be banded over to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of this judgment. No order as to costs.