CRP 436/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL Heard Mr. U. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. G.N.Sa hewalla, learned senior counsel appearing for the sole respondent. Shri Bhuyan submitted that the petitioner was the tenant under the respo ndent. Thereafter the respondent filed Title Suit No.9 of 1999 for eviction of the petitioner on the ground of default in paying rent and bona-fide requirement of the suit premises. The suit was decreed on 28.11.2001. The decree was challe nged by the tenant vide Title Appeal No.3 of 2002. The appellate court i.e. Civ il Judge (Senior Division), Bongaigaon set aside the decree of the original cour t. Against the appellate judgment, the landlord preferred CRP No.228 of 2002. Th e said revision petition was disposed of on 17.3.2006 by this court. As per the said judgment the finding of bona-fide requirement recorded by the appellate court was upheld, but the eviction decree was granted only on the ground of defa ult in payment of rent. Against the judgment of this court, the tenant approache d the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the SLP was dismissed. Thereafter, the tenanted premise was vacated. Shri Bhuyan submitted that along with the decree of eviction the trial c ourt had also granted damages @ Rs.150/- per day and now the respondent has fiel d Title Execution Case No.7 of 2006 to realize the damages. According to the learned counsel, in view of the judgment of this court that was affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the plaintiff-respondent is not entitled to any damages. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid plea can be raised only by way o f fling review application before the appropriate court and not by way of filing fresh revision petition. With the aforesaid observations, the revision application stands dispo sed of.