The Gauhati High Court has reaffirmed the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, holding that concurrent findings of fact by two lower courts on the issue of a landlord’s bona fide requirement for eviction cannot be overturned absent perversity or jurisdictional error. This judgment clarifies the threshold for interference in tenant-landlord disputes under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The respondent, Sujauddin Ahmed, and his brother were co-owners of an RCC building in Village Seher, Guwahati, with Dag No. 433 under K.P. Patta No. 268. Upon partition, the respondent received the entire second floor and the RCC hall on the ground floor. He let out the ground floor hall to the petitioner, M/s Assam (Trade) Agencies, represented by its partner Yashpal Chachra, under a written tenancy agreement dated 12.08.2002 for a term of five years, ending in August 2007.
Key Facts
- The petitioner paid Rs. 1,25,000 as advance rent, to be adjusted at Rs. 1,000 per month against the monthly rent of Rs. 3,500.
- On expiry of the first term, the tenancy was extended for another five years by a new agreement dated 01.10.2007, with rent increased to Rs. 5,000 per month.
- Upon expiry of the second term on 31.08.2012, the respondent demanded eviction, claiming bona fide need for self-employment.
- The petitioner refused to vacate, prompting the respondent to file Title Suit No. 185/2013 for eviction.
- The petitioner filed a counter-suit, Title Suit No. 462/2012, seeking declaration of tenancy rights and alleging illegal acts by the respondent, including disconnection of water and sewage.
- The petitioner deposited rent in court after the respondent allegedly refused to accept it.
Procedural History
- 12.08.2002: First tenancy agreement executed.
- 01.10.2007: Second tenancy agreement executed with increased rent.
- 31.08.2012: Second tenancy term expired; eviction notice issued.
- 2012: Title Suit No. 462/2012 filed by petitioner.
- 2013: Title Suit No. 185/2013 filed by respondent for eviction.
- 25.11.2016: Trial Court (Munsiff No. 2, Kamrup M) decreed eviction suit, holding bona fide requirement established; directed return of Rs. 5,000 advance rent.
- 28.06.2019: First Appellate Court (Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup M) dismissed appeal, upholding trial court’s findings.
- 22.01.2026: Revision petition heard before Gauhati High Court.
- 04.05.2026: Judgment delivered.
The Parties' Positions
For the Petitioner
- Argued that the respondent’s claim of bona fide requirement was false, motivated by grudge and rent enhancement.
- Contended that the respondent had no proof of business plans (e.g., trade license, site preparation).
- Asserted that the respondent’s rental income of Rs. 5,000/month was sufficient given the petitioner’s higher income and two shops in Guwahati.
- Claimed the burden to prove the respondent had alternative space within the building lay with the petitioner, which was wrongly placed under Sections 101/103 of the Indian Evidence Act.
- Challenged the imposition of costs in the decree as unjustified.
For the Respondent
- Maintained that he was unemployed, with a family to support, and Rs. 5,000/month rent was insufficient for survival amid rising costs.
- Cited Mehmooda Gulshan v. Javaid Hussain Mungloo (2017) 5 SCC 683 to support the legitimacy of bona fide requirement for self-employment.
- Pointed to paragraph 6 of the judgment in Title Suit No. 462/2012, where the trial court acknowledged his plea of bona fide requirement.
- Argued that revisional jurisdiction cannot reappreciate evidence absent perversity.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought setting aside of the appellate court’s judgment dated 28.06.2019 and the trial court’s decree dated 25.11.2016, with a direction to reinstate his tenancy and quash the cost order. He also sought return of the Rs. 5,000 advance rent adjustment.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, can interfere with concurrent findings of fact by two subordinate courts on the issue of bona fide requirement for eviction, where no jurisdictional error, illegality, or perversity is demonstrated.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel contended that the lower courts ignored material evidence and misapplied the burden of proof. He argued that the respondent’s claim of bona fide requirement was unsubstantiated by any documentary proof of business intent, such as trade license applications, business plans, or financial projections. He further asserted that the respondent’s rental income of Rs. 5,000/month was adequate, especially since the petitioner had been paying rent regularly and had two commercial shops. He cited the absence of any counter-claim in Title Suit No. 462/2012 as proof of mala fide intent. He challenged the imposition of costs under Section 35 CPC as legally unsustainable in an eviction suit.
For the Respondent/State
The respondent’s counsel countered that the concurrent findings of two courts on the issue of bona fide requirement were entitled to deference under settled revisional principles. He relied on Rajani Manohar Kuntha v. Parshuram Chunilal Kanojia (2025) Live Law(SC) 1253 and Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority (2015) 3 SCC 49 to emphasize that revisional jurisdiction is not a second appeal. He submitted that the respondent’s testimony regarding financial hardship and need for self-employment was credible and corroborated by the trial court’s observation in Title Suit No. 462/2012. He argued that the burden to disprove the landlord’s claim of alternative accommodation lay with the tenant, as per Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by delineating the narrow scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC, which permits interference only where a subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or committed an illegality or material irregularity. It emphasized that revision is not a substitute for appeal and that reappreciation of evidence is impermissible unless the findings are perverse.
"If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse. But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be, the conclusions would not be treated as perverse."
The Court noted that the respondent, PW-1, testified that he was unemployed, had a family to support, and that Rs. 5,000/month was insufficient to meet rising living costs. The trial court and appellate court both accepted this testimony as credible. The High Court found no perversity in this conclusion, as it was based on evidence that a reasonable person could rely upon.
The Court rejected the petitioner’s argument that the respondent’s failure to produce a trade license or business plan invalidated the claim. It held that bona fide requirement does not require proof of completed preparations, only a genuine intention to use the premises for self-employment. The Court also dismissed the contention that the rent increase from Rs. 3,500 to Rs. 5,000 indicated lack of bona fide need, noting that rent hikes are common in long-term tenancies and do not negate a landlord’s genuine need.
Regarding the burden of proof, the Court affirmed that under Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, the party asserting a fact (here, that the landlord had alternative accommodation) must prove it. The petitioner failed to discharge this burden. The Court further held that the reference to the respondent’s claim in the judgment of Title Suit No. 462/2012 negated the argument that the plea was raised for the first time in the eviction suit.
On the issue of costs, the Court clarified that Section 35 CPC applies to all civil suits, including those under the Rent Control Act. The successful party is entitled to costs unless the court records reasons to the contrary. The trial court’s imposition of costs was lawful.
The Verdict
The revision petition was dismissed. The Gauhati High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts that the respondent had established a bona fide requirement for the premises for self-employment. The Court affirmed the decree of eviction and the order directing return of Rs. 5,000 as advance rent. Costs of Rs. 10,000 were imposed on the petitioner. No further relief was granted.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Concurrent Findings Are Nearly Immune to Revision
- Practitioners must recognize that revision petitions under Section 115 CPC cannot be used to reargue factual disputes where two courts have reached the same conclusion.
- A revision petition will fail unless the petitioner demonstrates perversity, jurisdictional error, or material illegality - mere disagreement with the factual finding is insufficient.
Bona Fide Requirement Does Not Require Documentary Proof of Business Plans
- A landlord’s sworn testimony of need for self-employment, even without a trade license or business registration, suffices if credible and uncontradicted.
- Courts will consider financial hardship, family needs, and absence of alternative income as valid indicators of bona fide requirement.
Burden of Disproving Alternative Accommodation Lies with the Tenant
- If a landlord claims no alternative space, the tenant must prove otherwise.
- Failure to adduce evidence on this point will result in the landlord’s claim being accepted.
Costs Are Recoverable in Eviction Suits
- Section 35 CPC applies to rent control cases.
- A landlord who succeeds in eviction is entitled to costs unless the court records specific reasons to deny them.
