JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr S Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr D Chakraborty, learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondent. 2. The revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”), has been invoked to challenge the Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2024, passed in Title Appeal No. 12/2023, by the learned Court of learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lakhimpur, at North Lakhimpur, whereby the Appeal filed by the petitioner herein, was dismissed, thereby affirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29.09.2023, passed by the learned Court of the Munsiff No. 1 at Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur, in Title Suit No. 18/2017. Taking into account that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the parameters of the revisional jurisdiction within which the instant proceedings is required to be adjudicated. 3. For the purpose of deciding as to whether this Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction against the impugned judgment and decree, this Court finds it relevant to refer to the Judgment of the Supreme Court, wherein the scope of the revisional jurisdiction was explained. In the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Dilbahar Singh reported in (2014) 9 SCC 78 , the Supreme Court in paragraph 43 observed as under: “43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court/first appellate authority because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the court/authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the court/authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by court/authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.” 4. In the backdrop of the above proposition of law well settled, let this Court take up as to whether the petitioner herein has been able to make out a case to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Lakhimpur, at North Lakhimpur (hereinafter, referred to as the learned fist appellate Court), in Title Appeal No. 12/2023. For adjudging the said aspect, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the brief facts which led to the filing of the instant proceedings. 5. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein, are referred to, in the same status, as they stood before the learned trial Court. 6. The respondent herein, as plaintiff, instituted a suit being Title Suit No. 18/2017, before the learned Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Lakhimpur, at North Lakhimpur (for short, ‘the learned trial Court’). The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a religious organization at North Lakhimpur and it is constituted mainly to propogate the Sikh faith through the Gurbani of the “Holy Guru Grant Saheb”. The plaintiff had let out the premises which have been specifically described in the Schedule to the plaint to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/- per month only, according to the English Calendar month. The plaintiff had let out the premises which have been specifically described in the Schedule to the plaint to the defendant at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/- per month only, according to the English Calendar month. Earlier, the father of the defendant was a tenant of the plaintiff and after his demise, the defendant requested the plaintiff to let out the said premises to him in the year 1999 and since then, he had been occupying the said premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 3,000/-. It was stated in the plaint that the rent was payable on or before the first date of each succeeding month. 7. The plaintiff alleged in the plaint that the defendant willfully defaulted in payment of rent for the suit premises for a period of 41 months, i.e., from February, 2014, to June, 2017 (both inclusive). It was also mentioned that the defendant without approaching the plaintiff, had deposited rent before the Court, sic only since January, 2017, which is not permissible in terms with Section 5 (4) of the Assam Urban Area Rent Control Act, 1972 (for short, “the Act of 1972”). 8. In addition to that, it is the further case of the plaintiff that the suit premises is the place of worship of the plaintiff community. It was further mentioned that the suit premises is located in a four-storied building belonging to the plaintiff. There is a hall in the second floor with a worship prayer place (Darbar Hall), the third floor is used for langar (dining hall) and the fourth floor is used for kitchen and stores. It was also mentioned that there are various senior citizens, belonging to the plaintiff community, who have difficulty in moving to the third floor for offering their prayers. Under such circumstances, there was a decision taken that the Nishan Saheb be shifted to the ground floor of the temple, wherein the said premises is situated. Taking into account that the rent was not paid for a period of 41 months and there was a bona fide requirement of the plantiff of the suit premises that the plaintiff issued a notice dated 29.05.2017, asking the defendant to vacate the suit premises. Taking into account that the rent was not paid for a period of 41 months and there was a bona fide requirement of the plantiff of the suit premises that the plaintiff issued a notice dated 29.05.2017, asking the defendant to vacate the suit premises. A reply there against was sent by the defendant, stating, inter alia, that the defendant is carrying on business in the said suit premises and as such, it was difficult for the defendant to vacate the suit premises. 9. Situated thus, the plaintiff filed the suit seeking a decree for khas possession of the suit premises, as described in the schedule of the plaint; for a decree of Rs. 1,23,000/-, being the arrear rent from 01.02.2014 to 30.06.2017, both inclusive @ Rs. 3,000/- per month; a decree of Rs. 300/- per day, as damages and mesne profit, and further damages/mesne profit until possession is delivered to the plaintiff. 10. Upon filing of the suit, the defendant filed his written statement, wherein various pleas were taken, preliminary objections were taken as regards the maintainability of the suit. It was mentioned that the plaintiff did not take rent from the defendant each month, but used to take rent for several months at a time and for its own necessity and convenience. It was also stated that the plaintiff took rent for 5 months at a time, from September 2013 to January, 2014, from the defendant for its own convenience and issued a receipt. The defendant further stated in his written statement that the defendant paid rent up to the month of November, 2016, and the plaintiff had stopped issuing receipt of rent without assigning any reason, in spite of request made by the defendant. It was also mentioned that the plaintiff had refused to take rent from the month of December, 2016, without showing any reason in spite of request made by the defendant, which made him to deposit the rent @ Rs. 3,000/- before the Court, from the month of December, 2016 onwards. 11. On the aspect of bona fide requirement, it was mentioned that there was no necessity of shifting the Nishan Saheb to the ground floor, instead the plaintiff is required to provide electric lift and such like amenity in the multistoried building. 3,000/- before the Court, from the month of December, 2016 onwards. 11. On the aspect of bona fide requirement, it was mentioned that there was no necessity of shifting the Nishan Saheb to the ground floor, instead the plaintiff is required to provide electric lift and such like amenity in the multistoried building. It was also mentioned that the plaintiff had let out a room in the ground floor of the building, which is adjoining to the west side of the stair case recently and the plaintiff could use that room or any of the five rooms let out to the tenants to be used as godown, but the plaintiff had targeted only the defendant without any just cause and it is not possible to shift the Nishan Saheb to the ground floor of the building. Interestingly, there is no statement made in the written statement that the defendant had made searches for alternative places for shifting, but could not find a suitable place. 12. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Court had framed 8 (eight) issues. The said issues are reproduced hereinunder- “Issue no.1: Whether there is any cause of action of the plaintiff? Issue no.2: Whether the suit premise is bona-fide requirement by the plaintiff? Issue no.3: Whether the defendant has defaulted the rent to the plaintiff from in payment of February, 2014 to June 2017? Issue no.4: Whether the defendant has been guilty of conduct of nuisance or annoyance to the plaintiff by blocking the front door of the staircase of the plaintiff's temple by keeping various goods sacks/bulky articles of his shop, thereby creating inconvenience to the devotees? Issue no.5: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of Khas possession of the suit premises? Issue no.6: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an arrear rent of Rs 1,23,000/-being the arrear from 01.02.2014 to 30.06.2017? Issue no.7: Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree as prayed for? Issue no.8: To what other relief/reliefs, the plaintiff is entitled to?” 13. On behalf of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined and two documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendant, three witnesses were examined and two documents were exhibited. 14. The learned trial Court vide the Judgment and Decree dated 29.09.2023, had decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. On behalf of the plaintiff, two witnesses were examined and two documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendant, three witnesses were examined and two documents were exhibited. 14. The learned trial Court vide the Judgment and Decree dated 29.09.2023, had decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. In doing so, the learned trial Court came to a categorical finding in respect to the Issue No. 2, that the plaintiff did not have a bona fide requirement of the suit premises. However, as regards the Issue No. 3, the learned trial Court had duly taken note of the provisions of Section 5 (1) (e) of the Act of 1972, read with Section 5 (4) of the said Act, and came to a categorical finding that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of rent from February, 2015 to May, 2017. On the basis of the findings arrived at, in respect to the Issue No. 3, the learned trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff, thereby declaring that the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Khas possession of the suit premises mentioned in the schedule by evicting the defendant; the plaintiff is entitled to get arrear rent from 01.02.2015 to 31.05.2017 @ Rs. 3,000/- per month, along with the costs of the suit. 15. Being aggrieved, the defendant preferred an appeal under Section 8 of the Act of 1972, before the learned first Appellate Court, which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No. 12/2023. The learned first Appellate Court not only affirmed the decision of the learned trial Court in respect to the Issue No. 3, but also interfered with the Issue No. 2, and thereby held that the plaintiff had bona fide requirement of the suit premises. On the basis thereof, the learned first Appellate Court dismissed the appeal, vide the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 8th of August, 2024. It is under such circumstances, the present proceedings have been initiated before this Court. 16. Mr S Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the learned Courts below failed to take note of Section 5 (1) (e) of the Act of 1972, in the proper perspective, inasmuch, as the learned Courts below did not decide as to when the rent was due. 17. 16. Mr S Dutta, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the learned Courts below failed to take note of Section 5 (1) (e) of the Act of 1972, in the proper perspective, inasmuch, as the learned Courts below did not decide as to when the rent was due. 17. This Court has duly perused the evidence on record, as well as the observations made by the learned trial Court in respect to Issue No. 3, wherein the learned trial Court had categorically dealt with the question as regards Section 5 (1) (e) of the Act of 1972, and more particularly, as to when the rent fell due and on the basis of the evidence on record, came to a finding that the rent fell due at the end of each month. The learned trial Court as well as the learned first appellate Court further dealt with that the defendant had failed to prove that the defendant was not a defaulter in payment of rent. No perversity in this regard could also be shown on the evidence on record that the findings which were arrived at, in respect to the Issue No. 3, were perverse. 18. This Court further takes note of the decision of the learned first Appellate Court in respect to the Issue No. 2, wherein the Learned First Appellate Court on the basis of the evidence on record, came to a categorical finding that the plaintiff had the bona fide requirement over the suit premises. It was further held that it was not a mere desire of the plaintiff, but was a bona fide need for the purpose of carrying out its activities. 19. Considering the above, this Court does not find that there has been any jurisdictional error committed by the Learned First Appellate Court, in passing the impugned judgment and decree. There is also no material irregularity or illegality in exercise of jurisdiction. 20. Consequently, this Court finds no ground for exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code, for which the instant petition stands dismissed with cost, quantified at Rs. 11,000/-. 21. The Registry shall send back the Trial Court and the Appellate Court Records to the respective Courts.