JUDGMENT C.R. Sarma, J. 1. The judgment and order dated 30.09.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Darrang at Mangaldoi in Title Appeal No. 4/2003, thereby affirming the judgment dated 11.4.2001, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Darrang, Mangaldoi in Title Suit No. 17/91 is in challenge in this revision. 2. The Respondent/Plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 17/91 for ejectment and realization of khas possession of the suit property from the Petitioners/Defendants, who were tenants in respect of the suit property. 3. The Plaintiff's case, in brief, may be stated as follows: The suit land, along with the house thereon, was the ancestral property of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants were monthly tenants under Smti. Surabala Dutta, the Predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiffs. The Plaintiff's required the suit house for their own bonafide requirements. The Defendants instead of vacating the suit house, sub-let the tenanted room and failed to pay the rent w.e.f. March, 1976 onwards. Hence, the Plaintiffs instituted the said title suit seeking a decree for ejectment and khas possession on the ground of bonafide requirement and defaulter. 4. The Defendants, by filing a written statement and counter claim, contested the suit. According to the Defendant they being tenants in respect of the land; were protected under Section 5 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955. The Defendants also filed a counter claim seeking a decree for declaration that they were tenant and owner of the suit house. The Plaintiff contested the counter claim by filing written statement. The learned Trial Judge, upon pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: (1) Whether Plaintiffs have any cause of action for the suit? (2) Whether the Plaintiffs have right, title and interest over the suit land ? (3) Whether the houses standing on the suit land were constructed by the Defendants by spending about Rs. 17,000/- as alleged in the written statement and as such the Defendants are not liable to be evicted ? (4) Whether the Defendants are protected under Section 5 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Tenancy Act, 1955 ? (5) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (6) Whether the Defendants are entitled to the relief claimed in their cross claim ? (7) To what, if any relief the parties are entitled? (4) Whether the Defendants are protected under Section 5 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Tenancy Act, 1955 ? (5) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? (6) Whether the Defendants are entitled to the relief claimed in their cross claim ? (7) To what, if any relief the parties are entitled? Additional issues: (1) Whether the Defendant are tenants in respect of land over which the suit houses stand and if so whether Defendants are liable to be evicted from the land without serving notices under Section 11 of the Assam Non Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 and Section 106 of the T.P. Act ? The Learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Darrang, Mangaldoi framed the following additional issues- 3(1) Whether the Defendant was in possession in respect of the suit houses under the Plaintiff or their ancestor ? 3(2) Whether the Defendant sublet a part of the suit house ? 3(3) Whether the Defendant was defaulter-in payment of the rent ? 3(4) Whether the Plaintiffs have bonafide requirement for their own use in respect of the suit land and houses ? 5. The Plaintiffs examined as many as 9 witnesses, and the Defendants examined 4 witnesses, in support of their pleas. Having heard the counsels for the parties and considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs, holding that the Defendants were tenants in respect of the house and that they were not protected under Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 and Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act. It was also held, that the Defendants had sublet the suit house, that the Defendants were defaulter in respect of payment of rent w.e.f. March, 1976 and that the suit house was bonafide required by the Plaintiffs for their own use. 6. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the Respondents/Defendants preferred an appeal before the learned Civil Judge, Darrang, Mangaldoi. The said First Appeal was registered as T.A. No. 4/2003 and the learned Civil Judge, after hearing both the parties by the impugned judgment and order affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the First Appellate Court, the Petitioners/Defendants have come up with the present revision. Being aggrieved by the said judgment of the First Appellate Court, the Petitioners/Defendants have come up with the present revision. According to the Petitioners, both the Courts below committed gross error of jurisdiction in deciding the additional issue No. 1 i.e. the issue regarding the nature of the tenancy. According to the Petitioners, in spite of overwhelming evidence on record to show that the Defendants were tenants in respect of the land and thus protected under Section 5 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 the Courts below committed error in deciding the case against the Petitioners. It is also submitted, that error was committed by deciding that the Defendants were tenants in respect of the house, that the first appellate Court as well as the Trial Judge failed to properly appreciate the exhibits "Ditiocha to Ditiocha"' (33) and that it was wrongly held that the said exhibits were interpolated and forged by the Defendants. According to the Petitioners, the Courts below committed error of jurisdiction in holding that the counter foils of rent receipts, with correction/interpolation therein were not to be presumed as correct and authentic under Section 90 of the Indian Evidence Act although those were produced from proper custody. 7. It is also averred that the Courts below failed to exercise its jurisdiction by failing to rely on the documentary evidence i.e. Exts. Ka. Ka (1), Kha, Kha (1), Kha (2), Ga, Ga (1) to Ga (8) and Ext. Ja, Ja (1) and Ja (2) adduced by the Defendants/Petitioners, wherein the predecessor-in-interest of the Defendants, namely Chandramohan Mistry was shown as the owner of the suit houses. 8. I have heard Mr. H. Deka, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners/Defendants and Mr. B. K. Ghose, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents/Plaintiffs. Mr. H. Deka, learned Counsel submitted that the tenancy was in respect of the land and that the landlord had issued receipts by mentioning, with hand, that the rent was received in respect of the land. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the said contention was proved by the Exts. Ditiocha- Ditiocha (33) and that the said receipts being 30 years old, -contention of the said receipts should have been presumed as correct under Section 90 of the Evidence Act. Mr. Deka has also submitted that in view of the Exts. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the said contention was proved by the Exts. Ditiocha- Ditiocha (33) and that the said receipts being 30 years old, -contention of the said receipts should have been presumed as correct under Section 90 of the Evidence Act. Mr. Deka has also submitted that in view of the Exts. Ka, Ka (1), Kha, Kha (1), Kha (2), Ga, Ga (1) to Ga (8) and Exts. Ja, Ja (1) and Ja (2) the predecessor-in-interest of the Defendants/ Petitioners, namely, Chandramohan Mistry was the owner of the suit house and as such the learned Courts below committed gross illegality by brushing aside the said evidence. The learned Counsel relying on the decision in the case of Idandas v. Anant Ramchandra Phadke (Dead) by L. Rs. reported in (1982) 1 SCC 27 has submitted that the entries in the counter foils, retained by the landlord, can't be used against the Defendants. 9. Refuting the said argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that the landlord used to issue printed receipts and that the said printed receipts, as revealed from the inner foils, clearly indicated that the rent was in respect of the house but the Defendants interpolated the said receipts by putting the word "Mati" i.e. land in place of word "ghar" i.e. house. It is also submitted that the inner foils of the said receipts, which remained with the landlords were exhibited in this case, and the same clearly show that the rent was in respect of the house. According to the learned senior counsel, the counter foils of the receipts exhibited by the Defendants remained with the Defendants and the interpolation being made in respect of the counter foil, in their possession, it was the burden on the part of the Defendants to establish that the said interpolation/correction was made by the landlord. It is also submitted that in view of the absence of any such correction or interpolation in the inner-part of the counter foil, it can hardly be believed that the landlord had made the said interpolation/correction by deleting the printed word "house'" and substituting the same by putting the word "land". It is also argued by the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Respondent, that though the Exts. It is also argued by the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Respondent, that though the Exts. Ka, Ka (1), Kha, Kha (1), Kha (2), Ga, Ga(l) to Ga (8) and Exts. Ja, Ja (1) and Ja (2) indicate that the predecessor-in-interest of the Petitioners i.e. Chandramohan Mistry was shown as the occupier of the house, the DW-2 very clearly stated that, as per the Tax Assessment Register of the Municipal Board, Smti. Surabala Dutta i.e. the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiff/Respondent was shown as the owner of the relevant holding i.e. holding No. 90 and that the Defendants were shown as the occupier. In view of the entry in the Municipal Record, in respect of the said holding, the name of Smti. Surabala Dutta was recorded as the owner of the holding i.e. the suit house. The learned Counsel further submitted that collection of Tax from the occupier i.e. the tenant being permissible such issuance of receipt towards collection of tax can not alter the nature of the tenancy. Supporting the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the Respondent, submitted that as both the Courts below came to the concurrent finding regarding the nature of the tenancy, which was a matter of fact, on the basis of the available evidence on record, the Petitioners had no ground to challenge the said concurrent finding, by invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 10. There can be no dispute that the scope of exercise of revisional jurisdiction in respect of concurrent findings of the Courts below is very limited. The short question involved in this case was as to whether the tenancy was in respect of the house or the land. Admittedly, this was a matter of fact. Both the parties adduced evidence in support of their claim and counter claim and the learned Courts below, considering the evidence on record, came to the concurrent findings that tenancy was in respect of the house and not the land. From the evidence on record it is found that the Plaintiff could establish that the suit house was constructed by the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondent, namely, Mangal Dutta. PW 4 Rajendra Chandra Dutta and CW1 Harnath Rajbangshi clearly stated that the house was constructed by the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondent. From the evidence on record it is found that the Plaintiff could establish that the suit house was constructed by the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondent, namely, Mangal Dutta. PW 4 Rajendra Chandra Dutta and CW1 Harnath Rajbangshi clearly stated that the house was constructed by the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondent. CW-1 further stated, on oath, that he had helped the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiff by arranging a carpenter for constructing the house. According to this witness he along with a person namely, Gopal Das worked under the carpenter as his helper in constructing the said house. PW 3 also stated that the tenancy was in respect of the house. All the witnesses were duly cross-examined and nothing could be elicited to disbelieve their evidence. The original Defendant Sri Chandramohan Mistry, who was the predecessor-in-interest of the Defendants, deposed as D W-1. According to DW1, Sri Harnath Rajbongshi i.e. the CW-1 and Sri Gopal Das worked as massions in constructing the houses, but Sri Harnath Rajbongshi, who deposed as CW-1, stated that he was engaged by the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiffs in constructing the house. DW-2 Sri Rameswar Nath who was an employee of Mangaldoi Municipal Board, Mangaldoi stated that the holding No. 90 was in the name of Surabala Dutta and that the predecessor-in-interest of the Defendant i.e. Chandramohan Mistry was shown as its occupier. A careful perusal of the entire materials on record reveals that the Defendants could not establish that they had constructed the house on the suit land and that the tenancy was in respect of the suit land only. On the contrary, the Plaintiffs could establish, by adducing sufficient evidence, that the suit house was constructed by the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiffs and that the "holding" of the said suit house stood in the name of the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiffs. 11. That apart, the receipts, which were in printed form, were issued by the predecessor-in-interest of the Plaintiffs towards the rent paid by the Defendants. In the said printed receipts, the rent was mentioned to be in respect of the house, but the counter foils produced by the Defendants reveal that the word "house" was interpolated by the word "land". There is nothing on record to find that the said interpolation was made by the Plaintiff. In the said printed receipts, the rent was mentioned to be in respect of the house, but the counter foils produced by the Defendants reveal that the word "house" was interpolated by the word "land". There is nothing on record to find that the said interpolation was made by the Plaintiff. Because the exhibited inner foils of the said receipts show that it was me rent for the house and there was no such correction or interpolation therein. Sri Chandramohan Mistry, the original Defendant, who deposed as DW 1 did not exhibit the said receipts. DW-5 Sri Sambhu Sikdar, who was the grand son of DW 1, stated that the said receipts were found in a box in their house. As the receipts were in printed form, unless the contrary was proved, the printed contention regarding nature of the rent should be accepted. It is the contention of the Defendants that the interpolation/correction was made by the Plaintiffs by putting the word 'land' in place of 'house'. The said plea being taken by the Defendants and the interpolation/ correction being made in respect of the counter foil, available in their custody, it was the burden of the Defendants to prove that the said interpolation/correction was made by the Plaintiffs. From the materials on record it appears that the Defendants failed to discharge the said burden. In the case of Idandas (supra), the short question involved was whether the lease in question granted by the landlord to the Appellant-tenant was a lease for manufacturing purpose. If it was for manufacturing purpose, under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, the lease could be terminated only by giving six months notice. In deciding the said appeal in favour of the Appellant, the Hon'ble Apex Court held: Reliance was placed by the District Judge on the counterfoils where the Plaintiff-landlord tried to make out a case of monthly tenancy but the entry in the counterfoil being an admission in his own favour was not admissible against the Appellant. On the other hand, the trial Court has pointed out in its judgment that the receipts produced by the tenant clearly show that the rent used to be paid from year to year. Exhibits 24 to 26 pertained to the rent paid on an yearly basis right from 1959 to May 31,1961. On the other hand, the trial Court has pointed out in its judgment that the receipts produced by the tenant clearly show that the rent used to be paid from year to year. Exhibits 24 to 26 pertained to the rent paid on an yearly basis right from 1959 to May 31,1961. On point of fact, therefore, we are satisfied that in the instant case the lease was from year to year and, therefore, a month's notice was not legal if the lease was for a manufacturing purpose. 12. In the present case before this Court, the receipts were in printed form and it was printed, therein, that the rent was for the "house". The inner foils do not indicate any interpolation or correction. But the Defendant/Petitioner, producing the counter foils, in their possession tried to show it to be receipt towards the payment of rent for the land. The counter foils, produced by the Petitioner, reveal that there was interpolation by substituting the word "Mati" i.e. land and striking out the word "ghar" i.e. house. But there is nothing to show that the said interpolation was done by the landlord. Hence, the Petitioner can not draw any benefit from such interpolation in respect of the receipts in their custody. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that the above referred decision (supra) can't be beneficially used by the Defendants. Therefore, in my considered view, the learned First Appellate Court as well as the learned Trial Judge committed no jurisdictional illegality or material irregularity by refusing to accept the said contention of the Defendants. 13. In view of sufficient corroboration, extended by PW 2, PW 3 and PW 4 and CW 1 in favour of the Plaintiffs contention regarding nature of the tenancy, the Courts below committed no illegality or irregularity warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its power vested by Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. That apart, deposing as DW 1 Sri Chandramohan Mistry, in his cross-examination, stated that the house rent receipts were given by Plaintiffs, but he did not receive the same because the printed receipts were shown to be receipts towards the house rent. Hence, it appears that the original Defendants admitted that the receipts, issued by the landlord, were in respect of the house rent without any correction or interpolation therein. Hence, it appears that the original Defendants admitted that the receipts, issued by the landlord, were in respect of the house rent without any correction or interpolation therein. The said Defendant did not say anything regarding interpolation/correction made by the Plaintiffs. In view of the above, there is sufficient evidence to hold that the receipts issued by the landlord were in respect of the house rent and as such the learned Judges of the Courts below committed no illegality or perversity in holding that the interpolation/correction were not made by the Plaintiffs and that the tenancy was in respect of the house. Section 90 of the Evidence Act reads as follows: Presumption as to documents thirty years old: Where any document, purporting or proved to be thirty years old, is produced from any custody which the Court in the particular case considers proper, the Court may presume that the signature and every other part of such document, which purports to be in the handwriting of any particular person, is in that person's handwriting, and, in the case of a document executed or attested, that it was duly executed and attested by the persons by whom it purports to be executed and attested. 14. In view of the said interpolation in the outer printed receipts, produced by the Defendants, without any correction or interpolation in the inner foils retained by the landlord and on the failure of the Defendants to prove that the said interpolation was made by the Plaintiffs, the correction/interpolation can't be presumed to be correct or that the same was made by the Plaintiff. Had the receipts been fully hand written, the situation would have been different. As the Defendants wanted to show by producing the said counter foils of the receipts, the contention of which was contrary to the inner foils retained by the landlord/Plaintiff, that the tenancy was in respect of the land, it was the burden of the Defendants to establish the correctness of the said contention of the rend receipts and that the said correction was made by the landlord. But, as discussed above, the Defendants failed to prove that the interpolation/correction of the said counter foils was made by the Plaintiff. Therefore, even if counter foils produced by the Defendants from their possession were more than 30 years old, no presumption could be made under Section 90 in favour of the Defendants. But, as discussed above, the Defendants failed to prove that the interpolation/correction of the said counter foils was made by the Plaintiff. Therefore, even if counter foils produced by the Defendants from their possession were more than 30 years old, no presumption could be made under Section 90 in favour of the Defendants. In view of the above, in my considered view the learned Trial Judge committed no illegality by refusing to accept the said receipts, produced by the Defendants, as evidence in support of the Defendants claim. Hence, I find no force, in the contention of the learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the evidence available on record, the Defendants failed to prove that they were tenants in respect of the land on the other hand, the Plaintiffs, by adducing sufficient evidence, could establish that the tenancy was in respect of the house, that the Defendants had sublet the tenanted premises, that the Defendants were defaulter in payment of the rent and that the Plaintiffs required the tenanted premises for their own use i.e. for bona fide requirement. 16. In view of the above discussion and on meticulous examination of the record, I find no substance in this revision to hold that the learned Courts below exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law or that they failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or that they acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Therefore, I find no merit in this revision to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree. 17. Accordingly, the revisions dismissed. 18. No costs. 19. Send down the cast records. Petition dismissed