JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. C. Baruah, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. Lhamo Yangzom, the learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. G.N. Sahewella, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. B. Sarma, the learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This revision by the defendant under Section 115 read with Section 151 CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 05.04.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Appeal No.33/2017, thereby dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 10.09.2007, passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh in T.S. No.85/98. 3. The suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff was initially decreed by the court of learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh vide judgment and decree dated 21.05.2002. Aggrieved by the decree, the respondent/defendant preferred an appeal, being Title Appeal No.06/2002. In appeal, by judgment and decree dated 23.11.2004, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court. The aggrieved defendant preferred a revision before this Court. This Court by the judgment and order dated 27.02.2007, passed in CRP No.11/2005, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the both the learned courts below and the suit was remanded back before the learned trial court with a direction to frame an issue on the question as to whether the defendant was a tenant under the plaintiff in respect of the suit premises and then to determine whether the defendant was a defaulter and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to a decree as prayed for. 4. For the sake of convenience, the plaintiffs and the defendant in the suit are referred herein as the petitioners and the respondent, as arrayed in this revision. The case of the petitioners, in brief, is they claim to be the owners of the suit premises described in the Schedule of the plaint. It was projected that since the month of February, 1988 the respondent occupied the suit premises described in the plaint as a tenant, agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.200/- per month, payable on the first day of each month. It was projected that since the month of February, 1988 the respondent occupied the suit premises described in the plaint as a tenant, agreeing to pay a monthly rent of Rs.200/- per month, payable on the first day of each month. It was projected that the defendant had agreed to vacate the suit premises as and when required, and further that on failure of the defendant to pay monthly rent for two consecutive months, the petitioners would be entitled to peaceful possession of the suit premises by evicting the respondent. Claiming that despite requests and demands, the respondent had defaulted in paying monthly rent since September, 1997 the petitioners had filed a suit for eviction of the respondent and for recovery of arrear rent. 5. In the written statement, the plea of the respondent- defendant was that the petitioners had no right to sue. It was stated that the statements of the plaintiffs were false and fabricated. While denying the tenancy, a plea was set up that he had acquired right, title and interest over the suit premises from the original landlord, namely, Habib Khan, who had gifted him the land along with the house standing thereon in the first part of January, 1965 in presence of five witnesses and accordingly, the defendant had accepted the gift and since then he was residing in the suit premises by constructing house. It was stated that the municipal holding No.746 in respect of the house stood in his name and that the land was also mutated in his name. Hence, the defendant had prayed for dismissal of the suit. 6. As per the pleadings, the following issues were originally framed for trial: (i). Is the suit maintainable in law and on facts? (ii). Is the suit barred by law of limitation, estoppels, waiver? (iii). Whether the plaintiffs are the owner of the suit premises? (iv). Whether the defendant has acquired the right, title and interest over the suit premises by way of gift and by adverse possession? (v). Whether there is any cause of action arose for filing of the suit? (vi). Whether the suit is defective for non-joinder of necessary party? (vii). Whether defendant is a tenant and defaulter in the eye of law and liable to be ejected there from? (viii). Whether the plaintiffs are entitle to khaas possession of the suit premises by ejecting the defendant there from? (ix). (vi). Whether the suit is defective for non-joinder of necessary party? (vii). Whether defendant is a tenant and defaulter in the eye of law and liable to be ejected there from? (viii). Whether the plaintiffs are entitle to khaas possession of the suit premises by ejecting the defendant there from? (ix). To what extent the plaintiffs are entitled to relief in the law an equity? 7. However, at the time of hearing on matter being remanded by this Court, in terms of the order passed by this Court in CRP No.11/2005, the learned trial court took up the following three additional issues:- (a). Whether the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises? (b). Whether the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent? (c). Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief’s sought for? 8. The plaintiffs No.1 and 2 examined themselves as PW-1 & PW-2 respectively and they had exhibited the following documents, viz., Registered Sale Deed No.1471/87 (Ext.1), Certified copy of jamabandi (Ext.2), Original land revenue paid receipts (Ext.3). The defendant examined 5 witnesses viz., himself as DW-1, Joynil Abedin as DW-2, Noor Rahim as DW-3, Puni Ali as DW-4 and Mahsab Ali as DW-5 and exhibited following documents, viz., Kabilnama (Ext. Ka), School Certificate (Ext. Kha), Voter List (Ext. Ga), Holding extract (Ext. Gha), Money receipts issued by Dibrugarh Municipal Board (Ext. Unga to Ext.Ta), N.O.C. dated 05.03.1999 issued by Chairman, Dibrugarh Municipal Board for electricity connection (Ext. Tha), Possession Certificate dated 12.12.1997 issued by the Circle Officer, Dibrugarh East Revenue Circle (Ext. Da), Land revenue paid receipts (Ext. Dha to Ext. Na). Again the copy of plaint (Ext. Ka), signed by court on 01.06.2000, and Schedule of suit premises as given in plaint [Ext. Ka (1)]. 9. Before referring to the decisions of both the learned courts below, it is deemed appropriate to extract para-14 to 17 of the judgment and order dated 27.02.2007 passed by this Court in CRP No.11/2005: "14. From what has been observed above by the learned trial Court, it is clear that the learned trial Court has merely stated the case of the plaintiffs and then, abruptly, concluded that the defendant was a defaulter. There is absolutely no discussion as to how the plaintiff were regarded as the landlord of the defendant. 15. From what has been observed above by the learned trial Court, it is clear that the learned trial Court has merely stated the case of the plaintiffs and then, abruptly, concluded that the defendant was a defaulter. There is absolutely no discussion as to how the plaintiff were regarded as the landlord of the defendant. 15. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, neither the learned trial Court nor the learned appellant Court addressed the moot point for decision, namely, as to whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the plaintiffs, on the one hand, and the defendant, on the other. Though the plaintiffs had taken the ground of bona fide requirement, no issue was framed in this regard. However, in view of the fact that the plaintiffs did not file any appeal against the learned trial Courts judgment and decree, it is no longer required for the trial Court to determine if the suit premises are bona fide required by the plaintiffs, as landlord. 16. Considering, therefore, the matter in its entirety and in the interest of justice, the impugned judgment and decree, dated 21.05.2005, and also the judgment and decree, dated 23.11.2004, are hereby set aside. The suit is remanded to the learned trial court with direction to frame an issue on the question as to whether the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises and then, further, determine as to whether the defendant was a defaulter and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the decree as had been sought for. 17. No further evidence shall be allowed to be adduced by the parties in support of their respective cases and the decision, on the relevant issues, shall not be taken on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence available on record." 10. Therefore, the learned trial court had proceeded to decide only the additional issues on remand by this Court. 11. With regard to issue No. A, the learned trial court relied on the cross examination of PW-1, wherein he had stated that the holding number of the suit premises was 746 of Ward No.15 was in the name of respondent and that the respondent was paying the municipal taxes as well as the electricity bills. 11. With regard to issue No. A, the learned trial court relied on the cross examination of PW-1, wherein he had stated that the holding number of the suit premises was 746 of Ward No.15 was in the name of respondent and that the respondent was paying the municipal taxes as well as the electricity bills. The PW-2 had stated that he did not know in whose name the municipal holding was standing. As per the evidence of DWs No.2 to 5, they all have stated that since 1962-64, the respondent was staying in the suit premises. As per the statement of DW-1, he was staying on the said plot of land by constructing a house measuring 74 ft. X 60 ft. covering approx. 10 lecha land. He had deposed that he was staying there since 1962 and that he had got married while staying there and that all his sons and daughters were born there and that on 10.01.1965, the said Habib Khan had gifted the said property to him in presence of witnesses. The learned trial court held that the respondent was able to prove his possession by various exhibits. The learned trial court had observed that in the cross examination, PW-1 had admitted that in Schedule of the plaint [Ext. Ka (1) ], it was stated that the suit land was covered by Dag No.465 and 466 and that in his evidence, the land was stated to be covered by Dag No.466 only. As such, it was held that the DW-1 had admitted that the land mentioned in the plaint and the evidence are not identical. The PW-2 had admitted that he did not issue any rent receipts and that he did not maintain any record in this regard. The PW-2, in his cross examination had stated that he cannot say the exact location of the suit premises and had stated he could not produce any document to the effect that the respondent was a tenant under him since October, 1988. As per the deposition of PW-1, the respondent was their tenant since October, 1988 which was contradictory to the deposition of the PW-2, who had stated that the respondent had occupied the suit premises under them since February, 1988. As per the deposition of PW-1, the respondent was their tenant since October, 1988 which was contradictory to the deposition of the PW-2, who had stated that the respondent had occupied the suit premises under them since February, 1988. The learned trial court noted the fact that the petitioners could not produce any independent witness to prove that the respondent was a tenant under them at any point of time. Moreover, it was held that the petitioners could not give proper boundary of the suit premises. Appreciating the evidence of the witnesses, the learned trial court held that the respondent was successful to prove that he was in possession of the suit premises since 1962-65 on the basis of oral gift in his favour by Late Habib Khan and, as such, it was held that there does not exist the relation of landlord and tenant between the petitioners and the respondent and accordingly, the issue was decided in negative against the petitioners. 12. In respect to issue No. B, in view of the discussions on issue No. A, the learned trial court had held that the question of payment of rent and default does not arise at all and therefore, the said issue was decided in negative against the petitioners. Consequently, in respect of issue No. C also, it was held that the petitioners were not entitled to any relief. In result, the suit filed by the petitioners was dismissed. 13. In appeal, the learned first appellate court took note of the fact that as per the plaint, the rented house was 45 ft. X 44 ft. having bamboo fencing, kutcha floor, tin roof, but as per the written statement and deposition of the respondent (DW-1), he was occupying the land measuring 74 ft. X 60 ft., covered by Dag No.465 of P.P. No.75 and that the house was constructed thereon. It was held that the evidence of the DWs corroborated that the respondent was staying on the said land since 1962-64 and the said evidence had not been contradicted by the petitioners. It was held by the learned first appellate court that all the petitioners claiming to be the landlords had failed to prove any of the conditions of Assam Urban Area Rent Control Act as they were unable to prove how rent was deposited and accepted and how the respondent had defaulted in paying rent. It was held by the learned first appellate court that all the petitioners claiming to be the landlords had failed to prove any of the conditions of Assam Urban Area Rent Control Act as they were unable to prove how rent was deposited and accepted and how the respondent had defaulted in paying rent. It was held that it was the burden of the petitioners to prove their case. On the totality of the evidence, it was held that the petitioners had failed to prove their case that the respondent was a tenant under them. Accordingly, no reason was found to interfere with the decision of the learned trial court on issue No.A. In view of the findings recorded in respect of issue No.A, as the respondent was not found to be a tenant of the petitioners at any point of time, the issues No. B and C were also decided in the negative and against the petitioners. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. 14. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that both the learned courts below had approached the case under a misconception of law. He has referred to the stand taken by the respondent/defendant in the written statement where along with the oral gift, the defendant had also taken a ground of perfecting his title by way of adverse possession. It is submitted that both the plea are self contradictory and one negates another. Therefore, according to him, this is a fit case for remanding the matter back to the learned trial court for deciding all the issues afresh by permitting the parties to adduce fresh evidence in support of their case. No other grounds were seriously urged. 15. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondent/defendant submits that the learned trial court was bound by the judgment and order dated 27.02.2007 passed by this Court in CRP No.11/2005, whereby there was a specific direction to frame additional issues quoted above. It is submitted that the said order had attained finality and therefore, the learned trial court was bound to first decide the additional issues as per the mandate of this court and only thereafter the learned trial court could decide whether the petitioners were entitled to a decree as prayed for. It is submitted that the said order had attained finality and therefore, the learned trial court was bound to first decide the additional issues as per the mandate of this court and only thereafter the learned trial court could decide whether the petitioners were entitled to a decree as prayed for. While answering the said point of whether the petitioners were entitled to any relief, it was open for the learned trial court to decide other issues as formulated earlier by the learned trial, if at all any of those issues survived for decision and as in the present case, the existence of tenancy was itself negated, there was no reason for the learned court to go into those issues which were rendered redundant. 16. On merit, it is submitted that the suit property could not be properly identified by the petitioners and in view of the clear evidence of the PWs which proved that the description of suit property as stated in their evidence did not tally with the description of the suit property described in the Schedule appended to the plaint [Ext.Ka (1)]. Moreover, the relationship between the parties as landlord and tenant could not be proved. It is also submitted that the issues as decided by both the courts below stands fortified by concurrent findings of facts and therefore, this revisional court ought not to re-appreciate the evidence again and substitute its views over the concurrent findings of facts. 17. This Court has perused the evidence- in- chief of PW-1, and it is seen that he had specifically stated that the house measuring 45 ft. X 44 ft. was covered by the land under Dag No.466. As per the Schedule of the plaint [Ext.-Ka (1)], the land measuring 45 ft. X 40 ft., with the house standing thereon was covered by Dag No.465 and 466, P.P. No.75. However, as per the written statement, the suit land was measuring 74 ft. X 60 ft. (approx. 1 Katha 10.90 Lechas), covered by Dag No.465 under P.P. No.75. As per the plaint, the north, east, west and south are all shown as petitioners house. However, as per the written statement, the suit land is bounded in the North by drain, in the South by Road, East by Dinesh Das and in the West by Siraj Khan. (approx. 1 Katha 10.90 Lechas), covered by Dag No.465 under P.P. No.75. As per the plaint, the north, east, west and south are all shown as petitioners house. However, as per the written statement, the suit land is bounded in the North by drain, in the South by Road, East by Dinesh Das and in the West by Siraj Khan. Therefore, it appears that there has been indeed a mis-description of the suit property in the plaint. The PW-2 had stated that he could not state the exact location of the suit property. 18. Therefore, on merit, nothing could be shown to dislodge the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by both the learned courts below. Both the learned courts had appreciated the pleadings and evidence on record and concluded that the respondent was staying in the suit premises since 1962-65 and that by oral gift on 10.01.1965 by the original pattadar, namely, Habib Khan, the respondent was residing in the suit property by mutating his name in the municipal and revenue records. Furthermore, in the absence of any pleading as to the manner in which the respondent was tendering rent to the petitioners, the unimpeachable evidence is that the respondent was residing in the suit premises since 1962- 65 on his own right long before February, 1988, when the petitioners allegedly claim that the respondent had occupied the suit premises as their tenant. This Court does not find any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of facts in respect of issue No.A, which was formulated as per the direction of this Court by the order dated 27.02.2005, passed in CRP No.11/2005. Consequently, no case is made out for interference with the finding recorded by both the learned courts below in respect of issues No. B and C as framed by the learned trial Court. 19. On the point urged by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, it is too well settled that a defendant is permitted to take contradictory plea in his defence. If one needs any authority on the same, the case of Baldev Singh V. Manohar, (2006) 6 SCC 498 may be referred to. 20. 19. On the point urged by the learned senior counsel for the petitioners, it is too well settled that a defendant is permitted to take contradictory plea in his defence. If one needs any authority on the same, the case of Baldev Singh V. Manohar, (2006) 6 SCC 498 may be referred to. 20. In the present case in hand, the respondent/defendant has been successful in proving his defence about the gift of the suit land described in Schedule-A of his written statement and on the other hand, the petitioners/plaintiffs have not been able to prove their case about existence of the relationship of landlords and tenant between them and the respondent. Therefore, this Court does not find any cogent ground to remand the matter back for re-trial in terms of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioners because the core issue decided by the trial court was that the petitioners/plaintiffs were not successful to prove that the respondent was their tenant or that he had defaulted in payment of rent and the said issue stands negated by the concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the courts below. Accordingly, this Court does not find any good ground to re-appreciate the evidence on record and disturb the concurrent findings on record. This Court has not been able to find any ground for holding that the impugned judgments and decree passed by the learned Courts below suffer from any jurisdictional error, or perversity. The said judgments also do not suffer from any material irregularity. The question raised by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners are not related to question of the jurisdiction of both the learned Courts below, hence, interference on the said point would not be justified. 21. In view of the discussions above, this revision fails and the same is dismissed on contest. The parties are left to bear their own cost for this revision. 22. Send back the LCR.