CRP/140/2025 of NIBEDITA YEIN PEGU Vs CHANDRA KANTA DUARAH on 24 March 2026

ORDER

25.03.2026 Heard Mr. D Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The present petition has been filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, assailing the judgment and order dated 18.06.2025 passed in Title Appeal No. 19/2024 by the learned District Judge, Kamrup (M), Guwahati, whereby the judgment and decree dated 22.03.2024 rendered by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Title Suit No. 196/2017 was affirmed.

3. The facts, in brief, are that the petitioner, as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 196/2017 seeking, inter alia, a decree of permanent injunction directing the defendant/respondent to extend the tenancy/lease agreement in respect of the suit premises in favour of the plaintiff.

4. The Trial Court framed preliminary issues on the question of maintainability of the suit and, upon hearing the parties, by judgment and order dated 22.03.2024, held the suit to be not maintainable. The appeal preferred there against was dismissed by the Appellate Court, affirming the findings of the Trial Court on the ground that neither the tenancy laws nor the Specific Relief Act confer any right upon the plaintiff to seek a decree compelling extension of a tenancy agreement. The Appellate Court further held that the relief sought was legally untenable and not supported by the governing statutory framework.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in view of the counter- claim filed by the defendant/respondent, which is still pending adjudication before the Trial Court, the petitioner ought not to be evicted from the suit premises.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that no jurisdictional error has been committed by the Courts below and, therefore, the present revision petition is not maintainable within the limited scope of Section 115 CPC.

7. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the materials available on record.

8. Both the Trial Court and the Appellate Court have concurrently held that the suit is not maintainable, as there exists no enforceable legal right in favour of the plaintiff to seek extension of a tenancy agreement through a decree of permanent injunction. Upon examination of the record, this Court finds no perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings so recorded.

9. It is trite that the revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC is confined to cases involving jurisdictional error, illegality, or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. In the absence of any such infirmity, interference with concurrent findings of fact is impermissible.

10. The contention of the petitioner that he should not be evicted during the pendency of the counter-claim is misconceived in the present proceedings. This Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction against an order affirming dismissal of the suit as not maintainable, cannot grant independent or ancillary relief of protection from eviction. However, it is well settled that dismissal of a suit does not ipso facto render a counter-claim infructuous, and the same shall be adjudicated in accordance with law.

11. In view of the above, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference under Section 115 CPC is made out.

12. Accordingly, the revision petition stands dismissed.

13. No order as to costs.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant