JUDGMENT : (DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.) Heard Mr. A. Sattar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel appears on behalf of the respondents. 2. The present proceedings has been filed by invoking the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, “the Code”) challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2018 passed in Title Appeal No. 21/2017 by the learned Court of the Civil Judge, Nalbari (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned First Appellate Court”) thereby setting aside the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2017 passed by the learned Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Nalbari (hereinafter referred to as, “the learned Trial Court”) in T.S. Case No. 46/2015, as a result, the appeal filed by the respondents herein was allowed, and a decree for eviction was passed against the petitioner herein. 3. At the outset, taking into account that the revisional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked, let this Court therefore take note of the scope of the said jurisdiction. 4. 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 No. 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 reappreciation 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. 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.” 5. In the backdrop of the above proposition of law settled by the Supreme Court, a question arises, as to whether, this Court should exercise its revisional jurisdiction. For that purpose, this Court finds it relevant to take note of the facts which led to the filing of the instant application. 6. For the sake of convenience, this Court would refer to the parties in the same status as they stood before the learned Trial Court. 7. The materials on record show that the petitioner herein as plaintiff had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 46/2015 before the learned Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Nalbari against the respondents herein who were the defendants. 7. The materials on record show that the petitioner herein as plaintiff had filed a suit being Title Suit No. 46/2015 before the learned Court of the Munsiff No. 1, Nalbari against the respondents herein who were the defendants. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants had entered into a tenancy agreement with the plaintiff in respect to the suit premises as described in Schedule A to the plaint w.e.f. 01.01.1996. Subsequent thereto, after expiry of the said period, time and again, the rent agreement was increased and the tenancy period was extended. It was the case of the plaintiff that on 11.04.2015 at around 10:15 P.M., the defendants accompanied by some persons came to the suit premises and asked the plaintiff to vacate the premises on or before 30.04.2015, failing which, the defendants threatened the plaintiff. It is also mentioned that prior thereto, the plaintiff also received a notice from one Hrishikesh Sarkar, Advocate asking the plaintiff to vacate the suit premises on or before 31.03.2015. The plaintiff submitted a reply to the said notice stating inter alia that he required another 5 (five) years time to find a suitable place on the ground that in course of the business, the plaintiff has to realize Rs. 25,00,000/- from different customers. The plaintiff, fearing that the defendants would dispossess the plaintiff without following the due process, instituted the said suit seeking various declarations to the effect that the plaintiff is a lawful tenant under the defendants and the plaintiff should not be evicted without following due process of law. Along with the declaration, the plaintiff also prayed for permanent injunction. 8. Upon summons being issued, the defendants jointly filed a written statement raising various preliminary objections and also denied to various averments made in the plaint. It was the specific case of the defendants that earlier landlady, Late Madhabi Deka, was the wife of the defendant No. 1 and the mother of the other defendants. After the death of Late Madhabi Deka, the defendants became the landlords of the suit premises by way of inheritance. The defendant No. 1 ran a medical store in the name and style of “Deka Pharmacy” in a rented house at P.N.C. Road, Near Thana Chowk, Nalbari Town. After the death of Late Madhabi Deka, the defendants became the landlords of the suit premises by way of inheritance. The defendant No. 1 ran a medical store in the name and style of “Deka Pharmacy” in a rented house at P.N.C. Road, Near Thana Chowk, Nalbari Town. The rents collected from the suit premises and the earnings from the business of the pharmacy were the income source of the family. The defendant No. 1 sustained grievous injury in an accident on 17.04.2022 and became partially paralyzed. The defendant No. 2 after obtaining license from the concerned authority took charge of the pharmacy and the unemployed defendant No. 3 helped in the family business. 9. It is the further case of the defendants that the landlord of the premises where the pharmacy was located took over the possession of the pharmacy room for his own use 3 (three) years back, for which, the defendants lost the source of income from the pharmacy business. Under such circumstances, it became difficult on the part of the defendants to sustain and as such there was a bona fide need of the suit premises so that the defendants could carry out the business of pharmacy. It is for that reason a notice was issued to the plaintiff to vacate after the expiry of the period of tenancy i.e. 31.03.2015. However, the plaintiff submitted a reply that he required another 5 (five) years and it is under such circumstances, the counter claim was filed seeking eviction of the plaintiff from the suit premises. 10. It is seen that on the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed 10 (ten) issues, which are reproduced herein under: “1) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 2) Whether the suit is maintainable? 3) Whether the plaintiff is a lawful tenant under the defendant? 4) Whether there is any agreement of tenancy between the plaintiff and the defendant? 5) Whether there is any cause of action for the counter claim? 6) Whether the defendants have any bona fide requirement in respect of the suit premises? 7) Whether there is any lawful ground for eviction of the plaintiff? 8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief(s) as prayed for? 9) Whether the defendants are entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for? 10) To what other relief/reliefs, the parties are entitled to?” 11. 7) Whether there is any lawful ground for eviction of the plaintiff? 8) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief(s) as prayed for? 9) Whether the defendants are entitled to the relief(s) as prayed for? 10) To what other relief/reliefs, the parties are entitled to?” 11. On behalf of the plaintiff, 3 (three) witnesses were examined and 6 (six) documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendants, 3 (three) witnesses were examined and 9 (nine) documents were exhibited. 12. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 16.08.2017 decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and dismissed the counter claim. 13. Being aggrieved, the defendants preferred an appeal which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No. 21/2017 and the learned First Appellate Court dismissed the suit and decreed the counter claim and it is under such circumstances, the present proceedings has been initiated. 14. The point for determination involved in the present proceedings in view of the issues being framed and the findings arrived at by both the learned Trial Court as well as the learned First Appellate Court appears to be the question, as to whether, the defendants had bona fide requirement of the suit premises. 15. This Court at the outset finds it very pertinent to take note of that in the notice so issued by the defendants asking the plaintiff to vacate by 31.03.2015, it was categorically stated that the defendants had a requirement of the suit premises. In reply, which is an admitted fact, as would be seen from the pleadings of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff sought for a period of 5 (five) years in the year 2015 so that he can find a suitable location for shifting his business. As on date, when the present proceedings is being taken up it has been 10 (ten) years since the date on which such reply was issued, meaning thereby, that the period which was sought by the plaintiff for vacating which is an admitted case of the plaintiff itself have long passed. 16. This Court further finds it relevant to observe that the learned First Appellate Court had duly taken into consideration the evidence on record and arrived at a finding that the defendants had bona fide requirement of the suit premises and accordingly decreed the counter claim in favour of the defendants. 16. This Court further finds it relevant to observe that the learned First Appellate Court had duly taken into consideration the evidence on record and arrived at a finding that the defendants had bona fide requirement of the suit premises and accordingly decreed the counter claim in favour of the defendants. This Court finds no perversity in the findings of the learned First Appellate Court in the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.04.2018 passed in Title Appeal No 21/2017 and as such the question of interference in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Court does not arise. 17. While dictating the judgment, Mr. A. Sattar, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that some time may be granted to the petitioner to make a suitable arrangement, taking into account that the petitioner/plaintiff had been running his business since 1996 in the said suit premises. 18. Mr. R. Ali, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents herein who are the defendants submitted that the defendants have been suffering since 2015 on account of a want of a suitable place for carrying out their business, therefore, no further time may be granted. 19. This Court had given anxious consideration to the respective submissions made. This Court is not unmindful of the fact that the respondents have been deprived of the enjoyment of the suit premises even after the fact that they had proved that they have bona fide requirement of the suit premises. On the other hand, the plaintiff had been running a business establishment and naturally if the plaintiff is ousted immediately, it would result in great difficulties. In the opinion of this Court, the plaintiff can be granted 6(six) months time for shifting its business from the suit premises subject, however, to giving certain undertaking before the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, this Court observes that the plaintiff can be granted time to occupy the suit premises till 27.11.2025, subject to filing undertaking before the learned Trial Court on or before 06.06.2025, which should contain the following: a). That the petitioner/plaintiff shall vacate the suit premises described in the Schedule A to the plaint on or before 27.11.2025. b). That the petitioner/plaintiff would not create any third party rights or do any act which would impact/prejudice the rights of the defendants/respondents herein in respect to the suit premises. c). That the petitioner/plaintiff shall vacate the suit premises described in the Schedule A to the plaint on or before 27.11.2025. b). That the petitioner/plaintiff would not create any third party rights or do any act which would impact/prejudice the rights of the defendants/respondents herein in respect to the suit premises. c). The petitioner/plaintiff shall pay in the form of compensation an amount of Rs. 18,000/- per month to the respondents. This payment under no circumstances shall create any right and interest over the suit premises and shall also not create any land-lord tenant relationship. 20. It is observed that if the undertaking is not filed before the learned Trial Court by the petitioner/plaintiff on or before 06.06.2025, the respondents herein shall be entitled to proceed with the execution. 21. It is also observed that the undertaking submitted before the learned Trial Court on the basis of the leave so granted would be construed as undertaking filed before this Court. Under such circumstances, if the terms of the undertaking are violated, it would not only entail consequences before the learned Executing Court, but also would amount to contempt of the order(s) passed by this Court. 22. This Court further observes that the respondents herein would be entitled to recovery of the rent for the period from the date of filing of the suit till 06.06.2025. For that purpose, the respondents herein would be at liberty to approach the learned Executing Court. The learned Executing Court shall by giving opportunity to both side decide on the entitlement after taking into consideration, how much amount had been deposited by the petitioner/plaintiff before the Court during the pendency of the eviction proceedings. It shall be the burden of the petitioner/plaintiff to prove the amount deposited. 23. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that the respondents herein, who are the defendants had been unnecessarily deprived of the enjoyment of the tenanted premises and on account of the various judicial proceedings there has been a considerable delay. Under such circumstances, as the instant petition is completely vexatious and meritless, this Court imposes a cost of Rs.30,000/- only upon the petitioner. The said amount be deposited along with the undertaking to be filed before the learned Trial Court. 24. Interim order, if any, stands vacated in view of the directions as given hereinabove. 25. Under such circumstances, as the instant petition is completely vexatious and meritless, this Court imposes a cost of Rs.30,000/- only upon the petitioner. The said amount be deposited along with the undertaking to be filed before the learned Trial Court. 24. Interim order, if any, stands vacated in view of the directions as given hereinabove. 25. Revision petition, accordingly, stands dismissed subject to the observation(s) as made hereinabove. 26. LCR be returned back.