H.N.SARMA, J. - (1.)By this revision petition the petitioner tenant has challenged the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 26-11-99 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr Divn) No. 1, Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 23/95 allowing the appeal and thereby reversing the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn) No. 3 in Title Suit No. 17/87, in part.
(2.)The Title Suit No. 132/82 was filed by the landlord respondent on June, 82 praying for ejectment of the petitioner tenant on the ground of bona fide requirement and defaulter. In the said suit prayer was also made for fixation of standard rent in respect of the suit premises. The suit premises as mentioned in Schedule B of the plaint are two godowns measuring 320 sq ft and 540 sq ft being part of Holding No. 81 of Ward No. 20 of Gauhati Municipal Corporation. The defendants submitted their written statement in the suit and denied the contention of the plaintiff. The plaintiff's further case was that the suit premises originally belonged to one Champa Devi Goenka who gifted the same to Asok Kumar Goenka on 25-03-72 by a registered Gift Deed who in turn sold it on 16-03-73 to Shyam Sundar Goenka. The plaintiff respondents jointly purchased the land from Shyam Sundar Goenka by registered sale deed dated 10-07-81. There was a deed of rectification rectifying some clerical mistake of the sale deed. There is no dispute to that effect. At paragraph 8 of the plaint the plaintiff stated as follows :
"That the plaintiffs got their names mutated to the land in question in Mutation Case No. 13 of 1981-82 of the court of Assistant Settlement Officer, Gauhati Town Resettlement and a Kutcha Patta for the land was issued in the name of the plaintiffs The plaintiffs are also paying the land revenue for the land. The plaintiffs also got their names recorded m respect of the structures standing on the land and the present holding number of the structures are 81 of S.R.C.B. Road, Ward No 20 of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation and the plaintiffs have paid the Municipal Tax for the holding to the end of June, 1982. The plaintiffs have also paid the Urban Immovable Property tax for the year 1981-82."
This paragraph was replied in paragraph 18 of the written statement as follows:-
"That the statements made in paragraph 8 of the plaint are not admitted and the plaintiffs are put to strictest proof thereof."

(3.)The learned trial court framed as many as nine issues out of which Issue No. 3 relates to defaulter and Issue No. 5 relates to bona fide requirement of the plaintiff land lord. Issue No. 7 relates to the fixation of the standard rent. Both the parties adduced two witnesses in support of their respective case and exhibited connected documents. The learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 27-04-1995 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the defendant petitioner is not defaulter and there is no bonafide requirement of the suit premises. Against this, the present respondents filed an appeal being Title Appeal No. 23/95 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn), No. 1, Guwahati. The learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn) considering the materials and evidence on record held the defendant petitioner to be a defaulter. The learned lower appellate court considering the documentary evidence on record and assessing the oral evidence as well as other materials on record reversed the judgment of the trial court in respect of the issue regarding default and concurred with the finding regarding bona fide requirement. The learned lower appellate court also fixed the standard rent at enhanced rent as claimed by the plaintiff on the basis of the valuation report submitted by the registered valuer.