JUDGMENT : Kalyan Rai Surana, J. Heard Mr. M.J. Quadir, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent. 2. The respondents herein, namely, Sri Jeetmal Ghorawat and 5 others had filed Title Suit No. 114/09 against the petitioners herein for ejection and for realizing arrear rent. The said suit was allowed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Nagaon by judgment and decree dated 7th January, 2014. The petitioners herein preferred an appeal, which was registered as Title Appeal No. 12/2014, which was dismissed by first appellate judgment and decree dated 23rd April, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon. The said judgments and decrees passed by the learned trial court as well as the first appellate court have both been assailed in this revision filed under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code. 3. The case of the respondents/ plaintiffs is that the predecessor-in- interest of the appellants was the original monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises described in the Schedule appended to the plaint, which was an Assam Type House with pucca floor wooden frame C.I. sheet roofing situated on a plot of land covered by Dag No. 549 of Periodic Patta No. 157 of Town Kissam under Town Mouja, Dist. Nagaon, which was covered by Holding No. 173 of Ward No.10 of Nagaon Municipality, located at Marwaripatty, Nagaon, with specific boundaries as mentioned therein. The tenancy was a monthly tenancy as per English calendar month and the appellant No.1 was doing business under the name and style of M/s. Janata Hotel of food and lodging by last paying monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- per month at the time of filing of the suit. It was projected in the plaint that since January, 1999, the appellants had not paid monthly rent despite repeated demand and the suit premises was an old construction and in dilapidated condition and, as such, the suit premises was urgently required for demolition and constructing a market complex/ shopping mall to engage the new generation i.e. unemployed youths in the family. It was the case of the respondents that before filing the suit, by sending an Advocate's notice dated 18.03.2008, vacant possession of suit premises was demanded. 4. The petitioner No.1 filed his written statement and also a separate written statement for his firm i.e. petitioner No.5. It was the case of the respondents that before filing the suit, by sending an Advocate's notice dated 18.03.2008, vacant possession of suit premises was demanded. 4. The petitioner No.1 filed his written statement and also a separate written statement for his firm i.e. petitioner No.5. The petitioners No.2, 3 and 4 jointly filed their separate written statement and took the defence similar to the one of the petitioners No.1 and 5. The petitioner No.1 denied the tenancy, monthly rent payable at the rate of Rs.2,000/- and asserted that the suit premises was constructed by his father (since deceased). It was projected that the land was owned by one Krishna Oswalini and ram Lakhan Khetawat and there was no fixed mode of paying rent and sometimes rent for several months were paid together. Since the month of May, 1975, rent at the rate of Rs.160/- per month was paid to landowners, i.e. sons of Subhagmal Jain and sometimes to Amol Chand Gherawat @ Amol chand Jain. It was projected that in course of time the original landlords left Nagaon and their legal representatives used to accept rent from the father of the appellants. Nani Gopal Das, the father of appellants was unable to look after the firm and, as such, introduced the appellant No.1 to the landowners, who accepted rent from the appellant No.1 from the month of August, 1978 and the father of the appellants died in the month of October, 1978. It was stated that sometimes rent was accepted by Amol Chand Gherawat, sometimes by Subhagmal Gherawat, sometimes by Jeetmal Gherawat, sometimes by Sreechand, sometimes by Rajendra Kr. Gherawat, etc. It was projected that the appellant No.1 reconstructed the original suit premises at a cost of Rs.50,000/- and rent was enhanced to Rs.200/- per month from the month of December, 1996 and the landowners accepted rent by signing in the rent book and on receiving instructions by Jeetmal Gherawat, one of the landlords, since January, 2002 the monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- was deposited in instalments of Rs.100/-, Rs.200/- on different dates in Bank A/c. No. SB-10020 of Canara Bank, Nagaon Branch. It was further projected that in June, 1996, the respondents had constructed a sweet factory on vacant land adjacent to latrine, bathroom, etc. It was further projected that in June, 1996, the respondents had constructed a sweet factory on vacant land adjacent to latrine, bathroom, etc. of Janata Hotel of appellant No.1 and also occupied three rooms within the tenanted premises for keeping their employees on condition of paying room rent of Rs.50/- daily per room. Thus, the appellant No.1 was now occupying 161/2 lechas land our of original area of 2 katha 10 lechas. It was stated that after the sweet factory of Aditya Store of respondents got gutted in fire in October, 2009, they reconstructed the area by further encroaching the tenanted land and also did not pay room rent for the 3 rooms. Hence, the appellants prayed for dismissing the suit with cost of Rs.10,000/-. 5. The following issues were framed by the learned trial court:- 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form as well as law in this regard? 2. Whether the plaintiff took on rent three rooms from the suit premises from defendants from June/1996? 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4. Whether the defendants are defaulter in respect of payment of house rent and as such liable to be evicted from the suit house? 5. Whether the suit premises is required by the plaintiff for bona fide purpose for reconstruction? 6. What relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to as per law and equity? 6. In course of trial, the respondents/plaintiffs examined the Respondent No.3, namely, Sri Dhanpat Gherawat as PW-1 and the petitioners/defendants examined 7 witnesses, viz., Sri Nitya Biswas, Sri Parimal Biswas, Sri Nirmal Biswas, Sri Fanilal Sen, Sri Supati Ranjan Das, Sri Sanjeev Das (Branch Manager, canara Bank, Nagaon) and Sri Durlav Chandra Bora (Tax collector of Nagaon Municipality Board). 7. In his cross examination, the PW-1 admitted the signatures of the landowners and staff, which were marked as Ext.1(1) to 1(91) and Ext.2(1) to 2(50), but the signatures marked as Ext.2(51) to 2(76) were not admitted to be given by the respondents. The PW-1 also specifically denied the signature marked as Ext.2(80) to be of Sri Jeetmal Gherawat and it was denied that Sri Jeetmal Gherawat directed the petitioner No.1 to deposit the rent on A/c. No. 10020 of Canara Bank. He admitted that rent prior to 36 months had become time barred and in the plaint default period was not shown. The PW-1 also specifically denied the signature marked as Ext.2(80) to be of Sri Jeetmal Gherawat and it was denied that Sri Jeetmal Gherawat directed the petitioner No.1 to deposit the rent on A/c. No. 10020 of Canara Bank. He admitted that rent prior to 36 months had become time barred and in the plaint default period was not shown. It was denied that the suit house was constructed by the petitioner No.1 in 1979 after dismantling the old house. It was denied that they had taken 3 rooms from the petitioner No.1 on rent. PW-1 had stated that Amol Chand had worked as their accountant in the year 2001 and he died 10 years back. It was denied that the land belonged to Ram Lakhan Khetawat and stated that there was no person of such name and as it was a mistake, his name was deleted from land records and in his place name of Amol Chand Khetawat was mutated by PW-1. 8. The DW-1 admitted in his cross examination that he did not see Smt. Krishna Oswali, the mother of Jeetmal and he knew Jeetmal and his brothers as owners. He did not know whose signatures were in Ext.2(1) to 2(80) and the said signatures were not known to him. He also did not know the signatures at Ext.1 to Ext.44. He did not know the account at Ext.3. He deposited that he deposited money in the account of one Kamal Chand Bothra, and he also admitted that the said Kamal Chand Bothra was an accountant of the respondents. He also admitted that he had made the seal seen in deposit slip. He specifically admitted that he did not deposit money in the name of brothers of Jeetmal. He stated that from 1995, rent was fixed at Rs.1,500/-, but he had not deposited Rs.1,500/- as a whole, but Rs.100 or Rs.200/- was deposited and he had deposited more than Rs.1,500/- at times but not less. He further admitted that from 1985, there was no provision for lodging and only restaurant exists. PW-2 admitted that he remained in house and the petitioner No.1 looked after him and he knew nothing of business and he had not made any rent deposit in the bank. PW-3 admitted that statements made in his affidavit were based on hearing. He also admitted that he never went to give rent. PW-2 admitted that he remained in house and the petitioner No.1 looked after him and he knew nothing of business and he had not made any rent deposit in the bank. PW-3 admitted that statements made in his affidavit were based on hearing. He also admitted that he never went to give rent. PW-4 denied that nano Gopal took the land on rent and constructed houses thereon. He stated that he had gone with Nani Gopal at the time of taking lease, bit he did not remember with whom the agreement took place. He denied that the petitioners never deposited rent in respondent's bank account. He stated that PW-5 was a salesman in Jain Bhandar (shop of "Surajmal and Jeetu") and later left the job. However, the PW-5, in his cross examination, stated that he never worked in Jain Bhandar. He also denied that Nani Gopal took land and house on rent in 1955. He stated that the owner of house of Nani Gopal was Oswal but denied that Oswal delivered 2 katha land to father of petitioner Nani Gopal. PW-6 stated that the account No. SB-10020 for the period 28.11.2001 to 30.07.2009 belonged to Kamal Chand Bothra, Aditya Store and he exhibited the said statement of account as Ext.4. In his cross examination, PW-6 admitted that Ext.4 was not a certified copy. He admitted that there were overwriting in Ext.3(4), 3(13), 3(27), 3(36), 3(69), 3(340) and 3(528) and further admitted that they do not accept over-written slips. DW-7 admitted that there no lodging facility was available. He admitted that mutation of owner is in respect of the houses and the receipt was in the name of Krishna Oswali and within bracket the name of Nani Gopal Biswas is written. 9. Thus, the learned trial court rightly framed the issues for trial and the relevant issues which may be revisited in revision are the issues No.4 and 5 narrated above relating to defaulter and bona fide requirement. In this context, the petitioners having taken a plea that the respondents herein were not the landowners, although questioned the title of the landowners, but did not seek any counter-claim in this regard. The petitioners could not prove that the petitioner No.1 offered rent to the landowners, because the appellant No.1 deposited rent in bank account of one Kamal Chand Bothra, who is admittedly not the landowner. The petitioners could not prove that the petitioner No.1 offered rent to the landowners, because the appellant No.1 deposited rent in bank account of one Kamal Chand Bothra, who is admittedly not the landowner. The petitioner No.1 had proved that he deposited a sum of Rs.100/- or Rs.200/- from time to time in the bank account bearing SB A/c. No. 10020, which as per the evidence of PW-6, stood in the name of Kamal Chand Bothra and he exhibited the said statement of account as Ext.4. The petitioners took a plea that one of the landowners, namely Jeetmal Gherawat vide Ext.2(80), instructed the petitioner No.1 to deposit rent in the said bank account, but the PW-1 denied the signature appearing at Ext.2(80) and the PW-1 himself admitted that he did not know whose signatures were in Ext.2(1) to 2(80) and the said signatures were not known to him. He also did not know the signatures at Ext.1 to Ext.44. He did not know the account at Ext.3. He deposited that he deposited money in the account of one Kamal Chand Bothra, and he also admitted that the said Kamal Chand Bothra was an accountant of the respondents. He also admitted that he had made the seal seen in deposit slip. He specifically admitted that he did not deposit money in the name of brothers of Jeetmal. Thus, this court does not find any infirmity in the decision given by the learned trial court as well as the learned first appellate court on the issue of defaulter. Similarly, both the learned courts have given their independent reasons for arriving at a concurrent finding of fact on the issue of bona fide requirement of the suit premises to construct a shopping complex and/or shopping mall. This court if of the further view that having taken a plea that the respondents, who were the landowners, took on rent from the petitioner No.1 three rooms to house their staff, has also proved the urgent, pressing and bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the landowners. This court if of the further view that having taken a plea that the respondents, who were the landowners, took on rent from the petitioner No.1 three rooms to house their staff, has also proved the urgent, pressing and bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the landowners. The case as projected by the petitioners was that the landowners had purportedly agreed to pay daily room rent of Rs.50/- per day, per room to the petitioner No.1, which comes to Rs.150/- per day, i.e. Rs.4,500/- per month, whereas, the petitioner No.1 was paying monthly rent of Rs.2,000/- per month for about 161/2 lechas land and houses standing thereon. Hence, the bona fide requirement of the suit premises by the respondents stood proved by the petitioners. 10. As both the learned courts below have concurrently held that the petitioners are defaulter and the suit premises was bona fide required by the respondents for constructing market complex/shopping mall, having decided issues No.4 and 5 in the affirmative and in favour of the respondents/plaintiffs, upon perusal of the evidence on record as discussed above, this court does not find this to be a case where the learned courts committed any perversity or jurisdictional error or misreading or misconstruing the pleadings and evidence on record while deciding the said two issues. A revisional court shall be slow in re-appreciating the evidence as in appeal. In the opinion of this court, the said two issues were rightly decided by both the learned courts below with its well reasoned judgment, as such, the same needs no interference. ORDER 11. The revision is found to be without any merit and the same is dismissed. The judgment and decree dated 7th January, 2014 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Nagaon in Title Suit No. 188/07 as well as the first appellate judgment and decree dated 23rd April, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon in Title Appeal No. 12/2014 are upheld. Let the LCR be returned back. 12. The judgment and decree dated 7th January, 2014 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Nagaon in Title Suit No. 188/07 as well as the first appellate judgment and decree dated 23rd April, 2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Nagaon in Title Appeal No. 12/2014 are upheld. Let the LCR be returned back. 12. As the petitioners have projected that the petitioner No.1 firm, i.e. M/s. Janata Hotel had been operating in the suit premises since the year 1955, this court is inclined to give 3 (three) months time from today to vacate the suit premises, subject to the following conditions: a. The petitioners shall deposit the decree sum with 6% interest as decreed before the learned Court of Munsiff No.1, Nagaon within a period of one month from today; b. The petitioners shall submit an unconditional undertaking in writing before the learned Court of Munsiff No.1, Nagaon within 1 (one) month from today to vacate the suit premises on or before 31.07.2017; c. The petitioners shall not hand over the suit premises to anyone other than any one of the respondents herein (plaintiffs); d. The petitioners shall henceforth pay monthly rent every month to any one of the respondents/plaintiffs, which shall not constitute any further tenancy or create any tenancy right in favour of the petitioners. e. The petitioners shall not cause any nuisance or any other disturbance and/or cause any damage to the suit premises in the meantime. f. It is made clear that if any of the above five conditions (a) to (e) are not complied with, the respondents/ plaintiffs shall be entitled to enforce the decree.