JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. Heard Mr. G. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. N. Das, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. This is an application filed by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2024 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.) No. 3, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned First Appellate Court”) in Title Appeal No. 01/2023 whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2022 passed by the Court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) in Title Suit No. 112/2015 was confirmed. 3. The question arises, as to whether, in the present facts this Court is required to exercise its revisional jurisdiction. To ascertain the said question, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant revision petition. 4. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to in the same status as they stood before the learned Trial Court. 5. The petitioner herein as plaintiff instituted a suit which was registered and numbered as Title Suit No. 112/2015 seeking declaration that the plaintiff is a tenant under the defendant; for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from letting out the suit room that is described in Schedule-A to the Plaint to any other person and for declaration that the plaintiff shall not be dispossessed or evicted from the suit room without following the due procedure of law. 6. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had taken the suit room on rent initially at a monthly rent of Rs. 900/- and subsequently it was enhanced to Rs.1800/- per month. He further stated that he had paid an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as advance to the defendant at the time of taking the room which is yet to be adjusted. On 26.02.2014, when the plaintiff opened the shutter to the suit room he could find the entire materials inside the room were reduced to ashes in fire. He further stated that he had paid an amount of Rs. 30,000/- as advance to the defendant at the time of taking the room which is yet to be adjusted. On 26.02.2014, when the plaintiff opened the shutter to the suit room he could find the entire materials inside the room were reduced to ashes in fire. The plaintiff alleged that it was the defendant who was responsible and apprehending that the defendant would forcibly evict the plaintiff from the suit room, the suit was filed seeking for the reliefs as mentioned herein above. 7. The defendant filed a written statement cum counter-claim wherein the defendant raised the plea that the plaintiff is a defaulter in payment of rent. It was mentioned that though there was an advance amount of Rs. 30,000/- paid, but the said amount have already been adjusted till June, 2014. It is the specific plea of the defendant that the plaintiff was a defaulter in payment of rent from the month of July, 2014. On the question of bona fide requirement it was also mentioned in the written statement cum counter-claim that the said suit room was required for the children of the defendant who wants to carry out some business. 8. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed as many as 6 (six) issues which being relevant are reproduced herein under. “1) Whether the plaintiff is a lawful tenant under the defendant? 2) Whether the plaintiff has been paying the rent regularly to the defendant? 3) Whether the defendant has bonafide requirement for the suit premises? 4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for? 5) Whether the defendant is entitled to a decree in the counter-claim as prayed for? 6) What other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled?” 9. On behalf of the plaintiff, he adduced himself as a witness and also exhibited various documents. On behalf of the defendant, two witnesses were examined and the defendant also exhibited certain documentary evidence. 10. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and decreed the counter-claim of the defendant vide the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2022. In doing so, the learned Trial Court came to an opinion that the plaintiff was a defaulter in payment of rent in terms with Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. 10. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff and decreed the counter-claim of the defendant vide the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2022. In doing so, the learned Trial Court came to an opinion that the plaintiff was a defaulter in payment of rent in terms with Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. In addition to that, the learned Trial Court also came to a categorical opinion that the defendant had a bona fide requirement of the suit premises. 11. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred being Title Appeal No. 01/2023 by the plaintiff. The said appeal was dismissed vide the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2024 thereby upholding to the findings so arrived at by the learned Trial Court on the issue of defaulter in payment of rent as well as also on bona fide requirement. It is under such circumstances, the instant petition has been preferred. 12. Mr. G. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that taking into account the scope of the revisional jurisdiction wherein the findings of facts cannot be interfered with unless there is a gross perversity, his submission would be limited to that the plaintiff/the petitioner herein is ready and willing to vacate the suit premises within a particular span of time, as may be directed by this Court. He further submitted that the learned First Appellate Court had directed that the plaintiff has to pay rent for the month of May, 2015 till his eviction. However, the learned First Appellate Court failed to consider that the plaintiff/the petitioner have been depositing the rent in the Court. He therefore submitted that the directions for recovery of the rent from May, 2015 till eviction has to be supplanted by a further direction to that effect that the amount which had been already deposited by the plaintiff before the Court should also be adjusted against the said recovery. 13. Mr. N. Das, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the defendant is seriously prejudiced on account of the delay in the eviction proceedings. He therefore submitted that the plaintiff may not be granted any time beyond a month. 14. This Court has taken note of the submissions and has also perused the learned Trial Court records as well as the learned First Appellate Court records. 15. He therefore submitted that the plaintiff may not be granted any time beyond a month. 14. This Court has taken note of the submissions and has also perused the learned Trial Court records as well as the learned First Appellate Court records. 15. From the materials on record, including the evidence, this Court is of the opinion that in respect to the findings of facts that the plaintiff is a defaulter in payment of rent and the defendant has bona fide requirement of the suit premises do not call for any interference. This Court further takes note of that the plaintiff is presently carrying on some business and as such to direct the petitioner to vacate immediately would cause irretrievable injury. 16. Considering the above and the submission of Mr. G. Bharadwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, this Court permits the petitioner to retain possession of the suit premises till 30.06.2025. During this period, the petitioner shall remain in possession of the suit premises as a custodian of the defendant and shall not take any action which would be detrimental to the interest of the defendant. It is further directed that during this period the plaintiff shall also pay in the form of compensation an amount of Rs. 1,800/- per month plus electricity charges to the defendant, which under no circumstances shall create any landlord tenant relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. 17. This Court further observes and directs that for the purpose of availing the benefit to remain in possession of the suit premises till 30.06.2025 as observed in paragraph No. 16 herein above, the plaintiff would be required to submit an undertaking within 10 days from today before the learned Trial Court i.e. the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati to the effect that the plaintiff would vacate the suit premises on or before 30.06.2025; that the plaintiff would be regularly paying the amount of Rs. 1800/- per month plus electricity charges as compensation to the defendant th within 7 of each English Calendar month; and that the plaintiff would not engage in any activities which would be detrimental to the interest of the defendant over the suit room. 18. 1800/- per month plus electricity charges as compensation to the defendant th within 7 of each English Calendar month; and that the plaintiff would not engage in any activities which would be detrimental to the interest of the defendant over the suit room. 18. It is observed that if the said undertaking is not filed within a period of 10 days from today before the learned Trial Court, the defendant would be at liberty to proceed with the execution of the said decree. This Court further observes that the defendant would be entitled to the rents for which the suit was filed as well as for the rents during the pendency of the suit till date. For that, the defendant can file an application before the learned Executing Court. The learned Executing Court while executing the said decree as regards, the recovery of the rent shall also take note of the amounts which have been deposited by the plaintiff before the Court and on the basis thereof, pass appropriate directions. 19. The Registry shall send back the records to the learned Courts below. 20. With the above observations and directions, the instant petition stands disposed of.