JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. S. Biswas, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1. None appeared for the Proforma- Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 2. As regards the Proforma-Respondent No. 2, the office note dated 24.06.2020 does not reveal that the service is complete. However, taking into consideration the issue in hand, the judgment and order, which I propose to pass, the presence of the Proforma-Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 is not relevant for the disposal of the instant petition. 3. This is a petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2018 passed by the Civil Judge No. 2, Cachar at Silchar in Title Appeal No. 3/2009 affirming the judgment an decree dated 23.12.2008 passed by the Munsiff No. 2, Cachar at Silchar in Title Suit No. 40/2003 has been put to challenge. 4. Before embarking upon the merits of the case, it would be relevant to take note of that, that this is a proceeding under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, whereby the revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked. It must be noted that the Revisionsal Court is not the 2nd Court of First Appeal and as such, the question of re-appreciating the evidence does not arise. What can be exercised in a proceeding, while exercising the revisional jurisdiction is to look into as to whether there has been an error in exercise of the jurisdiction and/or there has been any illegality or overlooking or ignoring the material evidence altogether, or the finding of the Courts below suffers from perversity, or any such illegality or such finding has resulted in gross miscarriage of justice. In other words, interference with an incorrect finding of fact for the purpose of exercising revisional jurisdiction must be understood in the context, where such findings is perverse, based on no evidence or misreading of evidence, or on the ground of perversity or such findings has been arrived at by ignoring or overlooking the material evidence or such finding is so grossly erroneous, if that is allowed to stand, will occasion in miscarriage of justice. 5. 5. In the backdrop of the above, the facts material for the purpose of disposal of the instant proceeding are that the respondent No. 1, as plaintiff, filed a suit being registered as Title Suit No. 40/2003, whereby the respondent No. 1 herein sought for eviction of one Abani Mohan Suklabaidya (since deceased), the original defendant as well as for recovery of arrear rent. It is the case of the plaintiff in the said suit that the original defendant took on rent the schedule premises from one Surendra Chandra Dutta at a monthly rent of Rs. 45/- to be payable on the 7th day of the following month as per the English Calendar and in that regard executed a rent note on 01.08.1964. The said arrangement between Lt. Surrendra Chandra Dutta and the original defendant continued during the life time of Surendra Ch. Dutta and after his death, the original defendant became the tenant under the landlord Sukumal Dutta, the son of Lt. Surendra Chandra Dutta and the rent was increased to Rs. 120 per month. Vide a registered Sale-Deed No. 1859 dated 06.12.1995, the suit premises was sold to the present plaintiff (respondent No. 1) herein for a valuable consideration and thereafter the original defendant attorned to the present plaintiff by paying rent @ 300 per month and in respect to which the plaintiff issued rent receipts. It may be relevant herein to mention that in paragraph 4 of the plaint, it has been categorically mentioned that the original defendant paid monthly rent @ Rs. 300/- per month to the plaintiff. It is the further case of the plaintiff in the suit that since February, 2003, the original defendant failed to pay the rent and as the suit premises is situated at the busiest commercial area of Silchar town there is bona fide requirement of the suit premises. The plaintiff further stated in the plaint that he was not able to conduct his business properly from the small room. It is also mentioned that the original defendant is having his residence at Chang Bungalow Road, Malugram, Silchar town and has also a grocery-cum-stationery shop near his residence. It is in that backdrop, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. 6. The original defendant filed his written statement. It is also mentioned that the original defendant is having his residence at Chang Bungalow Road, Malugram, Silchar town and has also a grocery-cum-stationery shop near his residence. It is in that backdrop, the suit was filed by the plaintiff. 6. The original defendant filed his written statement. In the said written statement there is no denial to the statements made in the plaint in paragraph No. 4 to the effect that the original defendant paid monthly rent @ Rs. 300 per month to the plaintiff. In paragraph 10 of the said written statement it is only averred that the defendant is not a defaulter of payment of rent, as the defendant paid rent for the month of February to May, 2003 to the plaintiff as per terms and conditions of payment of rent as usual and on being refused to accept the rent for the month of June to November, 2003 the defendant has been depositing rent in the Court of the Civil Judge, Jr. Div. No. 1 at Silchar in Misc. Case Nos. (R/C) 364/2003, 407/2003, 467/2003, 554/2003, 611/2003. There was no mention whatsoever in the written statement to the effect as regards the mode of payment; as and when it was being paid; or a different mode of tendering payment was there. At the cost of repetition, it is yet again observed that there was no denial to the statement made by the plaintiff that the monthly rent @ Rs. 300/- per month was paid to the plaintiff. As regards the plea of bona fide requirement, in the written statement there was no denial to the statements that the defendant has a grocery-cum-stationery business as averred in paragraph 9 of the plaint. It was only alleged in the written statement that the plaintiff has got sufficient accommodation to room his business at Nazir Pathpatty as well as at Jail Road adjacent to this residence of the plaintiff. It may be relevant herein to mention that during the pendency of the suit, the original defendant expired and his legal representatives were substituted. 7. On the basis of the pleadings as many as 6 issues were framed and for the sake of convenience the said six issues are quoted herein-below: 1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable? 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 4. 7. On the basis of the pleadings as many as 6 issues were framed and for the sake of convenience the said six issues are quoted herein-below: 1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable? 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 4. Whether the defendant is defaulter in payment of rent, in respect of the suit premises? 5. Whether the suit premises is in a dilapidate condition and requires immediate dismantling for reconstruction? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief/reliefs as prayed for? 8. Pursuant to the issues being framed, the plaintiff examined one witness and exhibited seven documents. The defendant did not adduce any evidence. The Trial Court vide the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2008 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff holding inter-alia that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent and further that the plaintiff was entitled to the suit premises on the ground of his bona fide requirement. 9. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2008, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners herein. The other legal representatives of the original defendant did not challenge the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and consequently the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2008 passed by the Trial Court in so far as the defendant Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 (the proforma-respondents herein) had attained finality. The said appeal was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No. 3/2009. 10. The First Appellate Court by a judgment and decree dated 9.11.2018 affirmed the judgment and decree dated 23.12.2008. In doing so, the First Appellate Court held that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent and consequently the issue No. 4 which was the issue as to whether the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent was affirmed by the Appellate Court. The issue No. 5, which was the issue as regards the bona fide requirement of the plaintiff, it was held that the Trial Court did not commit any error in holding that the plaintiff had the bona fide requirement of the suit premises. In the backdrop of the decision of the Appellate Court in respect to issue Nos. The issue No. 5, which was the issue as regards the bona fide requirement of the plaintiff, it was held that the Trial Court did not commit any error in holding that the plaintiff had the bona fide requirement of the suit premises. In the backdrop of the decision of the Appellate Court in respect to issue Nos. 4 and 5, the appeal filed by the petitioners was dismissed which has resulted in the present petition being filed by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 11. The issues i.e. as to whether the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent as well as the issue as to whether the plaintiff had bona fide requirement of the suit premises are essentially issues of facts which have been concurrently held in favour of the plaintiff. It is also relevant here to mention that in a suit where the plaintiff alleges that the defendant defaulted in payment of rent, it is the burden of the defendant to prove that there was no default committed by the defendant, who is the tenant. Admittedly there is no evidence led by the defendant. There is also no pleadings as sought to be canvassed before the First Appellate Court, that the rent, which was being paid was not paid every month, but was paid as per the convenience of the plaintiff and under such circumstances, the question of raising such plea in the First Appellate Court without any pleadings to back the same has been rightly not looked by the Appellate Court. The findings as regards the bona fide requirement by both the Courts below is based upon the pleadings and evidence which was led to that effect and the defendants (the petitioners herein) could not dislodge the said evidence. In fact, as already stated here-in-above, there was no denial in the written statement that the defendant had a grocery cum stationery shop near his residence. Under such circumstances, no interference is called for. 12. At the time of passing of this judgment, Mr. S.P. Choudhury, the counsel for the petitioners submits upon instructions that in case this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree, a period of 6(six) months should be granted to the petitioners as it would be very difficult on his part to find any alternative space within a short span of time. S.P. Choudhury, the counsel for the petitioners submits upon instructions that in case this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree, a period of 6(six) months should be granted to the petitioners as it would be very difficult on his part to find any alternative space within a short span of time. The counsel for the Respondent No. 1, Mr. S. Biswas fairly contends that he has no objection if time is granted, i.e. till 30th of April, 2022, provided the Respondent No. 1 does not have to file an application for execution in so far as eviction of the Petitioners from the suit premises is concerned. 13. As agreed to by the counsels for the parties concerned, the petitioners are directed to handover the possession of the suit premises to the plaintiff-respondent on or before 30.04.2022 without fail. As regards the payment of arrear amount directed by the Trial Court, confirmed by the First Appellate Court, the Respondent No. 1 shall be at liberty to file appropriate application seeking recovery of the said amount. It is clarified that the possession of the Petitioners during this period shall be that of custodian of the Respondent No. 1 in respect of the suit premises and the petitioners shall not do or cause to do anything during this period till handing over of possession to the Respondent No. 1 which might adversely impact and/or effect the rights of the Respondent No. 1 in respect to the suit premises. It is also clarified that the permission to remain in possession during this period upto 30.04.2022 shall not confer any right or interest upon the petitioners in respect to the suit premises. 14. It is also observed that the permission granted by this Court to the Petitioners to continue in possession of the suit premises till 30.04.2022 is based upon undertaking of the petitioners to vacate the suit premises within the said period and if the petitioner fails to adhere to the same, the Respondents herein shall be at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings including invoking the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. 15. In view of the above, the instant proceedings stands disposed of. No costs.