JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. B. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr. K. Kalita, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Opposite Parties. 2. This is an application filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “the Code”) challenging the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2023 passed in Title Appeal No.17/2021 by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Charaideo whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Munsiff, Charaideo dated 30.04.2021 in Title Suit No.10/2018 was affirmed. 3. The issue which is to be adjudicated herein as to whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court suffers from any jurisdictional error or the exercise of the jurisdiction has been done illegally or with material irregularity. For deciding the said aspect of the matter, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts leading to the filing of the instant proceedings. 4. The Respondents as Plaintiffs had instituted a suit being Title Suit No.10/2018 before the Court of the learned Munsiff at Charaideo seeking ejectment of the Defendant from the tenanted room specifically described in the plaint as well as for realization of arrear rent. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiffs are the owners of the shop house as specifically described in the schedule to the plaint. The said shop house originally belonged to the father of the plaintiffs who died on 07.09.2015 and after the death of their father, the plaintiffs got mutation of the land upon which the shop house stands. It was further mentioned that during the lifetime of the father of the plaintiffs, a monthly lease of Rs.800/-was created in favour of the defendant terminable within 31st March of each succeeding year and accordingly, the lease term expired on 31.03.2018. However, on 01.04.2018, when the plaintiffs requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises and on the other hand also did not pay the rent since July, 2018. It is under such circumstances, the suit was filed in the month of December, 2018. 5. However, on 01.04.2018, when the plaintiffs requested the defendant to vacate the suit premises, the defendant did not vacate the suit premises and on the other hand also did not pay the rent since July, 2018. It is under such circumstances, the suit was filed in the month of December, 2018. 5. The defendant filed his written statement along with the counter claim stating inter alia at Paragraph No.9 that the father of the defendant took the suit room from the plaintiffs’ father and the tenancy continued from 01.02.1986 to 31.01.2000 on a monthly rent of Rs.100/-. After the expiry of the lease term, the father of the plaintiffs allowed the defendant to remain in the suit room with an assurance to renew the lease agreement with the same rent and conditions but the plaintiffs’ father sometime in the month of February, 2000 asked the defendant to vacate the suit room. The defendant refused to vacate the suit room and thereafter continued to remain in possession of the suit room without any relationship of landlord and tenant peacefully without any hindrance. 6. From a perusal of the said written statement, it therefore transpires that the defendant duly admits that his father was a tenant of the father of the plaintiffs and thereupon, after the period of lease which was up till 31.01.2000 was over, the Defendant denied the title of the landlord. It is on the basis of which the defendant claimed acquisition of rights over the suit room on the basis of adverse possession by way of the counter claim. 7. On the basis of the said pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed as many as 5 (five) issues of which issue No.3 was as to whether the defendant is a tenant of the plaintiffs of the suit room and whether he had defaulted in payment of rent to the plaintiffs and as such liable to be evicted. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings as well as the evidence had come to a finding that the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiffs and as such he was bound to pay the rent in order to be protected from Section 5(1)(e) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. The learned Trial Court on the basis of the pleadings as well as the evidence had come to a finding that the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiffs and as such he was bound to pay the rent in order to be protected from Section 5(1)(e) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. However, as the Defendant had admittedly not paid the rent, he was a defaulter for which the Issue No.3 was decided in favour of the plaintiffs. As regards the Issue No.6, which was an issue pertaining to adverse possession, the learned Trial Court held against the defendant holding that the case of adverse possession was not made out. In the opinion of this Court, the learned Trial Court has rightly done so inasmuch as a tenant is always a tenant cannot claim adverse possession is a well settled principles of law. On the basis of the above, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs thereby granting 90 days to vacate the suit premises and also to pay the arrear rent from July, 2018 till he hands over the vacant possession of the suit property. 8. Against that, an appeal was preferred by the defendant which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No.17/2017. The learned First Appellate Court after taking into account the provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code, dismissed the said appeal by confirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. Under such circumstances, the present revision application has been filed. 9. I have perused the impugned judgments passed by the learned First Appellate Court as well as the judgment of the learned Trial Court. This Court has also perused the pleadings of both the parties wherein it is an admitted case of the defendant that the defendant’s father was a tenant and the defendant claims the right to be in possession of the suit house on the basis of his father being in possession as a tenant. Under such circumstances, the defendant cannot claim adverse possession against the plaintiffs. Under such circumstances, the defendant cannot claim adverse possession against the plaintiffs. It is also very relevant to take note of that admittedly even on the basis of the pleadings of the defendant, it is clear that the defendant had not paid the rent since 2000 and as such being a tenant, he is a defaulter for which the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court was justified in decreeing the suit. 10. Consequently, this Court therefore finds no jurisdictional error committed by the learned First Appellate Court in passing the judgment and decree dated 08.11.2023 in Title Appeal No.17/2021 for which the instant petition stands dismissed with cost quantified at Rs.11,000/-for the instant proceedings. In addition to that, the plaintiffs who are the Opposite Parties herein shall be entitled to costs throughout the proceedings. 11. Interim order passed on 12.02.2024 stands vacated.