JUDGMENT : DEVASHIS BARUAH, J. 1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Todi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Mr. G. Jalan, the 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 05.08.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as "the learned First Appellate Court") in Title Appeal No. 19/2017 whereby the judgment and decree dated 18.05.2015 passed by the learned Court of the Munsiff No. 4, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Title Suit No. 468/2012 was upheld. 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, (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. 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 respondent herein as plaintiff is a Hindu Undivided Family (H.U.F.) consisting of its members namely, 1. Sri Raj Kumar Agarwal, 2. Smt. Usha Devi Agarwalla and 3. Sri Gaurav Kumar Agarwalla, the last member being its Karta. The plaintiff is the owner of various shop premises of Narayani Block of RCC building known as Maliram Lohia Market, having its principal place of business at Maliram Lohia Market, H.B. Road, Fancy Bazar, Guwahati- 781001, Assam. The petitioner herein who was the defendant took on rent the shop room marked as No. 11 at the ground floor of Maliram Lohia Market and was running his business therefrom under the name and style of M/s Gift House as his proprietorial concern. The suit premises have been specifically described in Schedule C to the plaint. 8. On 01.06.1997, the defendant signed the declaration containing the usual terms and conditions of the tenancy. The rent was initially th agreed at Rs. The suit premises have been specifically described in Schedule C to the plaint. 8. On 01.06.1997, the defendant signed the declaration containing the usual terms and conditions of the tenancy. The rent was initially th agreed at Rs. 935/- per month payable within the 7 day of every month against receipt. The said tenancy was renewed on 01.08.1997, fixing the rent @ Rs. 935/- per month payable up to August, 2000. Thereafter, the rent was to be increased automatically by 15% over the rent on completion of every 3 (three) years. Accordingly, the rent increased by 15% becoming Rs. 1,645/- from August, 2009 to July, 2012. Thereupon, again the rent increased to Rs. 1,891/- per month after August, 2012. 9. In addition to that, it was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant was also liable to pay the electric charges as per the meter reading of the sub-meter installed separately and the electric service charges of Rs. 10/- per month. It was the allegation made by the plaintiff in the suit that the defendant had paid the rent up to June, 2011, but stopped paying the monthly rent from July, 2011. Further, the defendant also failed to pay the electric and service charges from September, 2011 onwards. It is under such circumstances, the plaintiff instituted the suit in the month of October, 2012, seeking ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises; for recovery of area rent to the tune of Rs. 27,058/- (the details so given in Schedule A to the plaint) along with mesne profit from November, 2012 till actual eviction of the defendant; for decree for arrears of electric and electric service charges amounting to Rs. 7,307/- (details of which have been given in Schedule B to the plaint). 10. The defendant filed a written statement raising various preliminary issues. It was mentioned in the said written statement that there is no denial to the fact that the rent of the suit premises was initially at Rs. 935/- which from time to time increased and was Rs. 1,891/- from the month of August, 2012. As regards the allegation of non-payment of rent, at Paragraph No. 12 of the written statement, the defendant denied that the rent up to the month of June, 2011 was only paid. The defendant also denied that there was no payment of electric charges since 26.09.2011. 1,891/- from the month of August, 2012. As regards the allegation of non-payment of rent, at Paragraph No. 12 of the written statement, the defendant denied that the rent up to the month of June, 2011 was only paid. The defendant also denied that there was no payment of electric charges since 26.09.2011. It was stated in the written statement that the defendant has altogether 5 (five) tenanted premises i.e. Shop No. 10, 11 on the ground floor and room No. 3, 4, and 6 on the first floor in the Maliram Lohia Market in different names under different arrangements of payment of rents, but the rents of all the tenanted premises used to be realized by one Sri Rajkumar Agarwal from M/s Gift House in Shop No. 11 since the very beginning. It was categorically stated that Sri Rajkumar Agarwal had realized the st st advanced rent from 1 of July, 2011 to 31 of December, 2012 from all the 5 (five) shop rooms amounting to Rs. 1,35,150/- and the estimated electric consumption charges till then amounting to Rs. 29,450/- from the defendant. 11. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Court framed as many as 8 (eight) issues which being relevant are reproduced herein under: “Issue no.1: Whether there is cause of action for this suit? Issue no.2: Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties? Issue no.3: Whether the suit is maintainable? Issue no.4: Whether there was any declaration dated 01.06.1997 made by the defendant containing terms and conditions of tenancy? Issue no.5: Whether the defendant has been a defaulter in payment of monthly rents for the suit premise since July 2011? Issue no.6: Whether the defendant failed to pay the electric charges and electric service charges? Issue no.7: Whether the plaintiff refused to accept the rent for the month of January? Issue no.8: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs as prayed for?” 12. On behalf of the plaintiff, Sri Rajkumar Agarwal was the sole witness and he had exhibited various documents. On behalf of the defendant, there was no evidence adduced. 13. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 18.05.2015, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and further held that the plaintiff was entitled to rent of the suit premises since January, 2013 till eviction of the defendant. On behalf of the defendant, there was no evidence adduced. 13. The learned Trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 18.05.2015, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff and further held that the plaintiff was entitled to rent of the suit premises since January, 2013 till eviction of the defendant. The learned Trial Court, while decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff, held that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of monthly rent and came to a finding that the defendant was a defaulter since January, 2013 and not from July, 2011. It is very pertinent to mention that the findings so arrived at by the learned Trial Court was on the basis that the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant was a defaulter in payment of the rent since July, 2011, which in the opinion of this Court was an incorrect approach taken by the learned Trial Court inasmuch, as the burden is always upon the tenant to prove that he is not the defaulter. 14. Be that as it may, the defendant filed an appeal before the learned First Appellate Court which was registered and numbered as Title Appeal No. 19/2017. The learned First Appellate Court after discussing the grounds of objections so taken, the submissions so made, the evidence adduced, the issues framed as well as by formulating 3 (three) points for determination, dismissed the said appeal. 15. It is however relevant to take note of that the learned First Appellate Court while deciding the said appeal categorically came to an opinion that the defendant having failed to prove that he had tendered rent since July, 2011 came to a categorical opinion that the defendant was a defaulter and accordingly, upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court. It is under such circumstances, the present proceedings have been filed. 16. This Court has heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties. 17. From the materials on record, it is apparent that the defendant herein did not adduce any evidence in respect to the pleadings that there was payment of Rs. 1,35,150/- as the rent from the month of 1st of July, 2011 up to 31s of December, 2012 as alleged in the written statement. 17. From the materials on record, it is apparent that the defendant herein did not adduce any evidence in respect to the pleadings that there was payment of Rs. 1,35,150/- as the rent from the month of 1st of July, 2011 up to 31s of December, 2012 as alleged in the written statement. It is further seen that there was also no evidence led that the defendant had paid the electric consumption charges to the tune of Rs. 29,450/-. The findings of facts so arrived at by the learned First Appellate Court and the manner in which the learned First Appellate Court had decided the issue Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 in the opinion of this Court, is in consonance with the well settled principles of law. 18. Consequently, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court dated 05.08.2024 in Title Appeal No. 19/2017 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the learned Trial Court dated 18.05.2015 in Title Suit No. 468/2012 was upheld. 19. While dictating the judgment, Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that 12 (twelve) months time may be granted to the petitioner to make a suitable arrangement, taking into account that the petitioner had been running his business since 1997 in the said suit premises. 20. Mr. G. Jalan, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent herein who is the plaintiff submitted that the respondent is agreeable to grant 9 (nine) months time to the petitioner. 21. This Court had given anxious consideration to the respective submissions made. This Court cannot be unmindful of the fact that the respondent herein had been deprived of the enjoyment of the suit premises even after the fact that they had proved that the petitioner was a defaulter in payment of rent. On the other hand, the petitioner has been running a business establishment and naturally if the petitioner is ousted immediately, it would result in great difficulties. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner can be granted 9 (nine) months time for shifting its business from the suit premises subject, however, to furnishing certain undertakings before the learned Trial Court. On the other hand, the petitioner has been running a business establishment and naturally if the petitioner is ousted immediately, it would result in great difficulties. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner can be granted 9 (nine) months time for shifting its business from the suit premises subject, however, to furnishing certain undertakings before the learned Trial Court. Accordingly, this Court observes that the petitioner can be granted time to occupy the suit premises till 11.03.2026, subject to furnishing undertaking before the learned Trial Court on or before 25.06.2025, which should contain the following: (a) That the petitioner shall vacate the suit premises described in the Schedule C to the plaint on or before 11.03.2026. (b) That the petitioner would not create any third party rights or do any act which would impact/prejudice the rights of the respondent herein in respect to the suit premises. (c) The petitioner shall pay in the form of compensation an amount of Rs. 3,000/- per month to the respondent. 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. 22. It is observed that if the undertaking is not filed before the learned Trial Court by the petitioner on or before 25.06.2025, the respondent herein shall be entitled to proceed with the execution. 23. 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. 24. This Court further observes that the respondent herein would be entitled to recovery of the rent for the period from the date of filing of the suit till 25.06.2025. For that purpose, the respondent 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 before the Court during the pendency of the eviction proceedings. It shall be the burden of the petitioner to prove the amount deposited. 25. 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 before the Court during the pendency of the eviction proceedings. It shall be the burden of the petitioner to prove the amount deposited. 25. This Court further finds it relevant to take note of that the respondent herein, who is the plaintiff 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. 26. Interim order, if any, stands vacated in view of the directions as given hereinabove. 27. Revision petition, accordingly, stands dismissed subject to the observation(s) as made hereinabove.