The main legal point established is that non-payment of rent as per the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 can justify eviction, and the protection under the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 does not apply in cases of non-payment of rent.

ORDER :

Dr. Lalit Kumar Chakraborty filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Dibrugarh, in the year 2000, seeking the eviction of the defendants therefrom. The trial court dismissed the above suit on 23.02.2005. The judgment rendered by the trial court, was assailed before the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh, by way of an appeal. The said appeal was allowed on 22.08.2008. The defendants in the suit assailed the judgment dated 22.08.2008, before the Gauhati High Court by preferring C.R.P. No.417/2008. The High Court accepted the above petition, on 19.05.2015. A challenge is now raised against the above order dated 19.05.2015, passed by the High Court, through the instant special leave petition.

2. Leave granted.

3. Even though eviction of the respondent-tenant herein, was sought on various grounds, we shall deal with the singular ground of non-payment of rent. The relevant statutory provision, which was relied upon by the learned counsel representing the appellant-landlord, was Section 5(1)(e) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the "1972 Act"). It is also relevant to mention, that reliance was also placed on Section 5(4) of the above Act. An extract of Section 5 of the 1972 Act, as is relevant for the adjudication of the present case, is reproduced below :

"5. (1) No order or decree for the recovery of possession of any house shall be made or executed by any Court so long as the tenant pays rent to the full extent allowable under this Act and performs the conditions of the tenancy :

Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply in a suit or proceedings for eviction of the tenant from the house:-

(a) .....

(b) .....

(c) .....

(d) .....

(e) Where the tenant has not paid the rent lawfully due from him in respect of the house within a fortnight of its falling due."

4. The claim of the appellant, is based on express pleadings in the suit. Accordingly, paragraphs 3, 4 & 6 of the suit, which are relevant for the question being debated, are extracted hereunder :

"3. That on or about 30/40 years back, the plaintiff rented out a house premises, morefully described in the schedule herein below to M/s. M. Ahmed Bhiyan & Co. on monthly rent @ Rs. 90/- P.M. payable to him on the 1st week of each succeeding English Calender Month. Md. Abdul Hussain Bhuyan son of late Noor Md. Bhuyan is now the owner Cum Proprietor of M/s. M. Ahmed Bhuyan & Co. and for that, he used to pay the monthly House rent to the plaintiff in a very irregular way.

4. That Md. Abdul Hussain Bhuyan is very much irregular in making payment of monthly house rent to the plaintiff since long, and in the process, the defendants have become a heavy defaulter in making the payment of the monthly house rent of Rs. 90/- per month since August, 1999, as such the defendants have no right to stay any further more in the house premises to the plaintiff, under reference, and thus, the defendants have become undesirable tenant of the plaintiff and for that, they are liable to be evicted from the house premises under reference. The said house premises is the subject matter of the suit, and as such, it is herein after called as Suit premises.

6. That on several occasions, the plaintiff requested the defendants to pay the arrear house rent to him, pending therefore since August, 1999 and also to vacate and deliver the peaceful vacant possession of the suit premises to him, as they have no right, title and interest over the same to stay any further more, but they without doing so, started residing therein unauthorisedly and illegally and that also without paying any rent whatsoever."

5. As against the afore-stated pleadings raised in the suit (by the appellant-landlord), the respondent-tenant in the written statement asserted as under :

"9. That the contents of para 3 of the plaint are also denied by the defendants.

It is specifically denied that on or about 30/40 years back the plaintiff rented out the suit premises to M/s