Brojendra Prasad Katakey, J.

1. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.06.2012 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge (FTC), Bongaigaon, in Title Appeal No. 2/2011, dismissing the appeal preferred by the revision petitioner/tenant, by affirming the judgment and decree dated 05.09.2001 (decree drawn on 12.09.2001) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Bongaigaon, in Title Suit No. 42/1993, whereby and whereunder the suit of the present respondent/landlord, filed under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (in short the 1972 Act), for eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant from the suit premises on the ground of defaulter, has been decreed. The respondent/landlord instituted the aforesaid suit, under the provisions of the 1972 Act, for eviction of the revision petitioner/tenant from the suit premises on the ground of defaulter and bonafide requirement, contending inter alia that though the plaintiff and the defendant had entered into a rental agreement w.e.f. 11.08.1989 for letting out the suit premises at a monthly rent of Rs. 800/-, for a period of 3(three) years ending on 31.07.1992 and the defendant paid an amount of Rs. 5,000/- as advance, to be adjusted at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month for the first 25 months of the tenancy, the defendant paid only Rs. 600/- per month to the plaintiff till 31.07.1992, despite the adjustment of the aforesaid advance. It has also been contended that despite the absence of a fresh tenancy agreement, after expiry of the earlier tenancy created up to 31.07.1992, the defendant continued to be the tenant under the plaintiff till 31.03.1993 and the defendant continued to pay Rs. 600/- per month till 31.01.1993, despite the earlier agreement for payment of Rs. 800/- per month. The further pleaded case of the plaintiff is that the defendant stopped payment of the monthly rent w.e.f. 01.02.1993 and instead filed Title Suit No. 9/1993 for declaration and injunction in the Court of the learned Munsiff, Bongaigaon. It has also been contended that there is violation of the terms of the tenancy as the defendant/tenant has made alteration in the suit houses without the consent of the plaintiff/landlord. The further pleaded case of the plaintiff is that the suit house is required for his own use and occupation for starting his own business for providing employment avenue for his son. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the suit for eviction of the defendant on the ground of defaulter, bonafide requirement and also for recovery of arrear rent of Rs. 11,400/- till 30.11.1993.

2. The defendant/tenant contested the suit by filing written statement, denying the claim of the plaintiff and contending inter alia that the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit, which has been filed only with a view to exert pressure on the defendant to compel him to vacate the suit premises, so as to induct new tenant at a much higher rent and for realization of Salami. It has further been contended that the plaintiff has no right to sue the defendant, who is a lawful tenant of the suit premises and paying the rent regularly through the Court, upon refusal by the plaintiff to accept the same. The pleadings relating to alteration of the suit premises, apart from bonafide use and occupation of the suit premises by the plaintiff/landlord have also been denied. According to the defendant at the end of the tenancy agreement on 31.07.1992 the plaintiff allowed the defendant to continue as tenant in respect of the suit premises on the same terms and conditions and took an advance of Rs. 3,400/- in the month of September, 1991, adjustable at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month w.e.f. September, 1991 till January, 1993 and thereafter when the defendant offered the rent to the plaintiff w.e.f. 01.02.1993, the same having refused to be accepted, was deposited in Court along with the rent for the month of March, 1993 as advance, by filing Misc.(NJ) case, as