JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. J. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party No.1 and Mr. B. Shahu, learned counsel for the opposite party No.2. 2. This application under Section 115 of the CPC has been preferred by third party of Title Execution No.17/2010 of the Court of Learned Munsiff No.1 at Tezpur, challenging the order dated 07.03.2014, whereby the application filed under Section 47 of the CPC was rejected. The opposite party No.1 of this revision petition as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.13/2007 in the Court of learned Munsiff at Tezpur praying for a decree of eviction of the opposite party No.2 herein (Kanhaiyalal Sarma) on the grounds of default and bona-fide requirement. The suit was decreed on 28.11.2008 on both the grounds and thereafter Title Appeal No.03/2009 was preferred by the tenant Kanhaiyalal Sarma (opposite party No.2 herein) before the learned Civil Judge at Tezpur. After hearing both sides, the learned first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by his judgment and decree dated 12.11.2009. Aggrieved, the sole defendant Kanhaiyalal Sarma preferred revision petition before this Court vide CRP No.63/2010, challenging the concurrent findings of the learned two Courts below on the points of default and bona-fide requirement. This High Court dismissed the revision petition and upheld the judgment and decree of eviction on the aforesaid grounds of default and bona-fide requirement. The revision petition was dismissed on 03.05.2010. Thereafter, the opposite party No.1 herein, being the decree holder, instituted Title Execution Case No.17/2010 in the Court of learned Munsiff at Tezpur for eviction of the opposite party No.2 herein (Kanhaiyalal Sarma). In course of the execution proceeding, Civil Nazir visited the decreetal premises and on being confronted with protest, he filed application before the learned Executing Court for police help. At this stage, the present petitioner as third party, filed an application under Section 47 read with Rule-97 and 101 of Order-XXI of the CPC staking claim for the first time that he had been in possession of three rooms of the decreetal premises as a sub-tenant of the original tenant (Kanhaiyalal Sarma). According to him, on the basis of a written agreement dated 26.08.1998, three rooms, one kitchen and one sanitary bathroom was sub-tenanted to him by original tenant Kanhaiyalal Sarma at a monthly rental of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) and he also accepted an advance of Rs. According to him, on the basis of a written agreement dated 26.08.1998, three rooms, one kitchen and one sanitary bathroom was sub-tenanted to him by original tenant Kanhaiyalal Sarma at a monthly rental of Rs. 500/- (Rupees five hundred) and he also accepted an advance of Rs. 35,000/- (Rupees thirty five thousand) for the purpose. The petitioner claimed that only after institution of the Title Execution Case, he became aware that there was collusion between the opposite party No.1 and opposite party No.2 herein really for his eviction from the suit premises and so he made a prayer for adjudicating his right, title and interest in the suit premises declaring the eviction decree passed in Title Suit No.13/2007 in-executable. 3. The decree holder, who is the land lord of the suit premises, filed a written objection being opposite party No.1 and totally denied existence of any sub-tenancy between the opposite party No.2 and the petitioner. It was specifically stated that even while the Court officials went to the suit land and house with execution process, no such fact of sub-tenancy was ever disclosed and the plea of sub-tenancy is really a sham. On the basis of such rival contention of the parties, the learned Court permitted them to adduce evidence in their respective favour. The present petitioner examined two witnesses including himself. The petitioner was examined as PW-1 and one Laxmi Narayan Sarma was examined as PW-2. Both the witnesses were thoroughly cross-examined by the opposite party No.1/decree holder. The decree holder on the other hand, examined herself as the sole witness. 4. In course of his examination-in-chief, the petitioner reiterated the same averments recited in the application filed u/s 47 of CPC, but while being cross-examined on oath, he stated in no uncertain terms that he did not know as to why he had filed the case against Dolly Benerjee, the decree holder. He denied of having any collusion with the judgment debtor, tenant. But, it appears that in course of his cross-examination, the learned Court noticed changes in his demeanour. The learned Executing Court recorded in course of cross-examination that the demeanour of notice is noted and he keeps on changing his statements. But, ultimately, at the later part of the cross-examination, the petitioner made the following revelations:- “After filing this case, I have not stayed at suit premises. The learned Executing Court recorded in course of cross-examination that the demeanour of notice is noted and he keeps on changing his statements. But, ultimately, at the later part of the cross-examination, the petitioner made the following revelations:- “After filing this case, I have not stayed at suit premises. It is not a fact that before filing this case, I never stayed in the suit premises. …………………… I reside at House No.13, Kalaguru Path, Birubari, Guwahati-16, Assam. I have not mentioned this address before.” 5. PW-2 Laxmi Narayan Sharma described himself to be next door neighbor to the suit premises. He deposed on oath in his examination-in-chief filed under Order XVIII Rule-4 of CPC that original landlord Kanu Choudhury had some agreement with petitioner Amal Kumar Mahanta and opposite party Kanhaiyalal Sarma for purchase of the house, but he did not know the terms and conditions of the agreement. He stated that both Amal Kumar Mahanta and Kanhaiyalal Sarma have been residing in the house since long past as tenants. In course of cross-examination, this witness stated that Kanhaiyalal Sarma resides at suit premises with his family. He also resides at Guwahati. On further cross examination, he disclosed the following:- “Kanhaiyalal Sarma has called me. I came to depose. I do not know who has filed the case against whom. I was informed by Kanhaiyalal to give evidence that he resides in the suit land. …………………………. I was called by Kanhaiyalal to give my evidence. No other witness accompanied us on that day.” 6. The cross-examination part of the aforesaid two witnesses examined by petitioner goes to show that it is Kanhaiyalal Sarma, who was taking the lead. Admittedly, he brought PW-2 Laxmi Narayan Sarma for deposing in Court. PW-2 did not know the case was fought between whom. Even when he came to Court, he was not accompanied by anybody else other than Kanhaiyalal Sarma. But, strangely enough, this Kanhaiyalal Sarma, who is none other than the judgment debtor, did not walk in to the witness box himself. He did not say a word. But took all possible steps to see that case of the present petitioner instituted u/S 47 CPC succeeds. The real interest, therefore, was not of Amal Kumar Mahanta, who stays in Guwahati. The real interest was that of Kanhaiyalal Sarma, the judgment debtor. He did not say a word. But took all possible steps to see that case of the present petitioner instituted u/S 47 CPC succeeds. The real interest, therefore, was not of Amal Kumar Mahanta, who stays in Guwahati. The real interest was that of Kanhaiyalal Sarma, the judgment debtor. The learned Executing Court being the Court of first instance had the occasion to notice the facial changes of the witnesses at the time of deposition. He noted that demeanour of the petitioner being PW-1 was changing from time to time and he was changing his statements. Such change of demeanour of witness or facial changes are only indications of his mind. A Court while recording deposition of a witness is not to act like a post office. He is not only required to record the statements as are originally made by the witnesses, but he is also to record at the same time his facial changes and changes of body gesture because he being the Court of first instance has only the scope to encounter the witness. A First Appellate court or Second Appellate Court will have to rely upon the observations made by the learned Court of first instance only. This is why it is imperative for a Judge in original proceeding to record the demeanour of witness at the time of his deposition before the Court as has been done in this case. It can be referred at this stage that such practice has been in vogue in our Country since long. Hindu Jurisprudence prescribed that Judge is required to note the change in colour and gesture of a witness at the time of recording his deposition. A reference to that effect is available in Verse No.26 of Chapter-8 of the Manusamhita. The mind of a witness has to be read from the shape, gesture, laboured speech, variation in his eyes and face etc.. In the case in hand, the learned Executing Court was cautious enough to note the changes in the facial gesture of the witness. 7. PW-1 is a resident of Guwahati. He admittedly did not disclose it in his application, but ultimately, collapsed at the end of the cross-examination. He claimed at the beginning of the cross-examination that he has been living in the suit premises occupying three rooms, one kitchen and one bathroom. 7. PW-1 is a resident of Guwahati. He admittedly did not disclose it in his application, but ultimately, collapsed at the end of the cross-examination. He claimed at the beginning of the cross-examination that he has been living in the suit premises occupying three rooms, one kitchen and one bathroom. Even PW-2 deposed in course of cross-examination that he was asked by the judgment debtor to come to Court to depose. Cross-examination of both these witnesses only go to show that judgment debtor (Kanhaiyalal Sarma) took steps even in the proceeding u/s 47 CPC and arranged for the witnesses. He requested PW-2 for being a witness and accompanied him up to Court. Petitioner being PW-1 was not anywhere in the scene to make arrangement for his own witness. All these only go to show that the judgment debtor being the tenant was desperate to frustrate the decree passed by three successive Courts against him on the ground of default and bona-fide requirement. 8. The learned trial Court even thereafter considered the correctness of the pleaded case of the petitioner. Petitioner claimed to be sub-tenant under the original tenant (Kanhaiyalal Sarma). In support of his claim, he produced an agreement executed by Kanhaiyalal Sarma in his favour, but neither this agreement nor any other document was indicative of the fact that original landlord had any knowledge about such sub-tenancy. Sub-tenancy though not legally prohibited under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, but there is an indication in Section 5(1)(d) of the said Act, that a tenant may be evicted, if he inducts a sub-tenant without consent of the landlord in writing. This may be an indirect enabling provision for induction of sub-tenant under the special statute. The guidance available in Section 5(1)(d) of the Act is that a tenant in possession of a tenanted premises is required to obtain permission of the landlord in writing before inducting a sub-tenant in the premises. So a sub-tenancy becomes permissible and lawful only as long as it is on the basis of a written permission of the landlord. 9. In the case in hand, petitioner came forward with a specific plea that he is a sub-tenant under Kanhaiyalal Sarma. Admittedly, Dolly Benerjee is the real landlord, who has derived title from one Md. Kanu Choudhury and thereafter started the eviction proceeding. 9. In the case in hand, petitioner came forward with a specific plea that he is a sub-tenant under Kanhaiyalal Sarma. Admittedly, Dolly Benerjee is the real landlord, who has derived title from one Md. Kanu Choudhury and thereafter started the eviction proceeding. The petitioner impleaded Dolly Benerjee as opposite party No.1 being the landlord and knowing her to be so. So the case of the petitioner is that of sub-tenancy. As pointed out above, claim of sub-tenancy will get a legal recognition only if it is preceded by a written consent from the landlord. The learned Court noted in no uncertain terms that petitioner failed to discharge that burden to prove that landlord opposite party No.1 (Dolly Benerjee) consented in writing for induction of the petitioner in the suit premises. The condition precedent of written consent of the landlord being a legal requirement and the same being non-existent in the present case, the learned Executing Court was of the considered view that petitioner failed to make out a case of sub-tenancy in the present case. 10. Having considered the depositions of all the three witnesses recorded in this proceeding, the certified copies of which were furnished to the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the respective pleadings of the parties, I do not feel that learned Executing Court has committed any error whatsoever in passing the impugned order. There is no jurisdictional error involved in the matter. Rather, it is clear and apparent that present petitioner instituted the proceeding u/s 47 CPC only to frustrate a lawful and valid decree of execution passed by the learned Trial Court and confirmed by the First Appellate and Revisional Court. 11. Considering the entirety of circumstances, the revision petition stands dismissed. 12. No costs.