CRP 174/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANIMA HAZARIKA Heard Mr. S Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. This revision petition is directed against the order dated 7.12.2010 pas sed by the learned Munsiff No.4, Cachar, Silchar, in petition No.114/6 filed by the petitioner in the Title Suit No.59/99. By the aforesaid impugned order the l earned trial Court rejected the prayer made by the petitioner for calling for th e records of Misc.(R/C) Case No.53/99 from the court of Munsiff No.1, Cachar, Si lchar, to proof the contents of the said records. 3. The petitioner herein is the tenant of the room described in the schedul e of TS No.59/99 under the opposite parties /landlord. The opposite parties as p laintiffs filed the title suit in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior D ivision No.1), Cachar, Silchar against the petitioner for a decree of ejectment of the petitioner/defendant from the suit premises and for realization of arrear rent etc. 4. The case of the opposite parties/plaintiffs is that the petitioner/defen dant was the tenant of the suit room described in the schedule on a monthly tena ncy from 1.1.1994 to 31.12.1998 subject to payment of the monthly rent at the ra te of Rs.350/- according to the English Calendar month payable within the first week of next month of monthly rent falling due and to obtain receipt thereof, in default, the petitioner/defendant will become defaulter and liable to be evicte d. Thereafter, the petitioner was in possession of the suit premises as a tenant under the opposite parties and was duly paying the rent to them. However, alleg ing that the petitioner neither tendered nor paid rent for the month of December , 1998 the title suit being TS No.59/99 was filed by the opposite parties on the ground of defaulter praying for a decree of ejectment of the petitioner from th e suit premises and also for realization of the rent of Rs.350/- for the month o f December, 1998 from him. It has further been contended in the plaint filed in the aforesaid title suit that the suit premises was bonafide required for their own use. 5. Upon receipt of the summons from the court, the petitioner/defendant app eared before the learned trial Court and contested the suit by filing the writte n statement specifically denying all the allegations made by the opposite partie s/plaintiffs in their plaint. Regarding non-payment of rent for the month of Dec ember, 1998, it was contended that the petitioner duly paid the rent to the oppo site parties for the month of December, 1998, but, they refused to accept the re nt and therefore, finding no other way the petitioner had to deposit the rent of Rs.350/- for the month of December, 1998 in the court through Misc.(R/C) Case N o.53/99 and since then the petitioner/defendant has been duly and regularly depo siting the rent in the court in accordance with the provision of Assam Urban Are as Rent Control Act, 1972. During the pendency of the suit, the petitioner has f iled one petition being petition No.114/6 praying for calling for the records of Misc.(R/C) Case No.53/99 from the court of learned Munsiff No.1 to prove the co ntents of the records of the said case by which the petitioner deposited the ren t of Rs.350/- for the month of December, 1998. The opposite parties/plaintiffs f iled objection to the petition stating inter alia that the petition is not maint ainable which has been filed with malafide intention to cause delay in the case as the petitioner had earlier too failed to take steps for calling for the recor ds without offering any explanation for not taking such steps and now again has filed the petition with the similar prayer and thus prayed for rejecting the sai d petition, though the court gave an opportunity to call for records of Misc. ca se as sought for. 6. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon per usal of the materials available on record, the learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 7.12.2010 rejected the prayer made in the said petition with a dire ction to proceed with the evidence of the defendant side. 7. I have perused the impugned order as well as the copy of the plaint and the contents of the petition No.114/6. Perusal of the impugned order would revea l that the defendant had filed a similar petition to call for the record of Misc .(R/C) Case No.53/99 on 14.9.2006 itself vide petition No.275/1 which was allowe d but, despite of fixing fourteen dates allowing the defendant to take steps for calling for the aforesaid records, the defendant failed to take proper steps wi thout accounting any reason for the failure to take steps. Consequently thereupo n, on 27.3.2008, the learned trial Court proceeded with the case and accordingly , case was proceeded with for cross-examination of PWs. The defendant vide petit ion No.114/6 has once again prayed for calling for the record of Misc.(R/C) Case No.53/99, while the learned court refused to accede to the prayer so made vide impugned order dated 7.12.2010 which is under challenge before this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 8. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon per usal of the averments made in the revision petition as well as the impugned orde r, I have not found any jurisdictional error committed by the learned trial Cour t nor there is any perversity in the order passed by the learned trial Court. 8. In view of the same, I am not inclined to interfere with the order dated 7.12.2010 passed by the learned trial Court in T.S. No 59/99. The revision peti tion accordingly stands dismissed. No costs.