JUDGMENT This is a civil revision filed by the defendant/non-applicant (tenant) under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order 10.4.2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Appeal No.18 of 2004, which, in turn, arise out of the order dated 15.10.2004 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No.77 of 2000. By impugned order, the first appellate court dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner herein and in consequence affirmed the judgment /decree passed by the trial court, which had decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff against the petitioner for his eviction from the suit house. So the short question, which arises for consideration in this revision petition is, whether two courts below were justified in decreeing plaintiff’s suit for eviction against the defendant (petitioner herein) from the suit house? Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need mention in brief infra. The petitioner is a defendant/non-applicant, whereas the respondent is the plaintiff. The dispute in this case relates to eviction of the petitioner from the suit house. The respondent (plaintiff) filed a suit out of which this revision arises against the petitioner (defendant) claiming (petitioner’s) eviction from the suit house. The suit was filed under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (for short hereinafter called “the Act”). It was inter alia averred in the plaint that plaintiff is the owner /landlord of the suit house, whereas the defendant is his tenant occupying the suit house at the rate of Rs. 200 per month rent for his personal use. The eviction was sought on the ground of non-payment of monthly rent and its arrears at the rate of Rs. 200 for the period from January 1997 onwards till the date of filing of the eviction suit by the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant denied the ownership as also the relationship of landlord and tenant with the plaintiff. In other words, according to the defendant, plaintiff was neither the owner of the suit house nor his landlord and nor was he in occupation in his capacity as a tenant in the suit house and hence, the question of paying any rent much less its arrears by him to the plaintiff did not arise. In other words, according to the defendant, plaintiff was neither the owner of the suit house nor his landlord and nor was he in occupation in his capacity as a tenant in the suit house and hence, the question of paying any rent much less its arrears by him to the plaintiff did not arise. The defendant also set up a plea that he has acquired an ownership rights over the suit house by virtue of adverse possession and being the owner of the suit house had every right to claim all rights, title and interest over the suit house. It is these issues, which were tried by the trial court on merits on the basis of pleadings of the parties. The parties adduced evidence. The Trial court by its judgment dated 15.10.2004 decreed the plaintiff’s suit. It was held that plaintiff is the owner and landlord of the suit house. It was also held that defendant is in possession of the suit house in his capacity as tenant and that there exists a relationship of landlord/tenant between the plaintiff and defendant in relation to the suit house. It was also held that monthly rent of suit house was Rs. 200 and since neither the rent and nor its arrears were paid by the defendant to the plaintiff for the period in question, he incurred the status of being a defaulter as specified under the Act and accordingly, rendered himself liable to suffer eviction from the suit house. In effect, therefore, plaintiff’s suit was decreed against the defendant resulting in passing a decree for his eviction from the suit house under the provision of the Act. The defendant felt aggrieved filed the first appeal before the first appellate court out of which this revision arises. The appellate court upheld the judgment and decree of the trial court and dismissed the appeal giving rise to filing of the revision by the defendant. Heard Mr. SK Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. PJ Saikia, learned counsel for the respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, I am inclined to dismiss the revision, as in my view, it has no merit. Heard Mr. SK Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. PJ Saikia, learned counsel for the respondents. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, I am inclined to dismiss the revision, as in my view, it has no merit. In the first place the question as to whether plaintiff is an owner or/and landlord of the suit house, whether defendant is the tenant of the suit house and if so, whether there exists any relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendant in relation to the suit house and if so, on what terms and conditions, such as, what is the nature of tenancy - whether it is residential or non-residential, whether it is monthly or yearly, what is the monthly/yearly rent, whether defendant is in arrears of rent and if so, how much etc are essentially the questions of fact. These issues are required to be proved by the parties with the aid of oral and documentary evidence. Once any finding is rendered by the trial court and affirmed by the appellate court, then such finding becomes a concurrent finding of fact and binding on the revisionary court, while hearing revision under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. It is only when such finding, though concurrent, is found to be rendered against the pleadings or evidence or any provision of law or when it is found to be so perverse to the extent that no judicial man of average capacity can ever record, a case for interference in revisional jurisdictional in such finding may be held made out, but not otherwise. Coming now to the facts of this case, when I perused the two judgments under consideration, I have not been able to notice any kind of such error so as to enable me to interfere in the impugned order in any revisional jurisdiction. In my view, the appellate court did appreciate the evidence on all material issues for sustaining the finding of the trial court. The finding of the two courts was such that it was capable of being recorded on the evidence adduced. The very fact that the defense of the defendant was that of setting up of the ownership rights on the basis of adverse possession indicated that he had no case. The reason was more than obvious. The finding of the two courts was such that it was capable of being recorded on the evidence adduced. The very fact that the defense of the defendant was that of setting up of the ownership rights on the basis of adverse possession indicated that he had no case. The reason was more than obvious. In the first place, by such defense, he admitted the ownership of the plaintiff because a plea of adverse possession can be set up only against the true owner and secondly, in a tenancy suit, the defendant could not take up the plea of adverse possession and even if taken, it could not have been tried on merits. That apart, the two courts below relied upon the admission of the defendant, wherein he had admitted the ownership of the plaintiff’s predecessor in title as also his possession in the suit house as tenant. It was, in my opinion, enough to answer the issue against the defendant, apart from other material, which was rightly relied upon for recording the findings on these issues. So far as non-payment of rent is concerned, no interference on this finding is called for because no evidence was adduced by the defendant to show that he ever paid any rent to the plaintiff. In fact, when he came with a case that he was the owner, then the question of paying the rent did not arise nor he bothered to pay such rent to plaintiff. In view of foregoing discussion, I find no merit in this revision petition. The revision, thus, fails and is accordingly dismissed. No cost.