The due date of rent payment, as specified in the lease agreement, and the tenant's failure to deposit rent within the due date during the pendency of a suit for eviction, can establish the tenant as a defaulter, justifying eviction.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. By this Civil Revision Petition, the plaintiffs, as landlords, have put to challenge the judgment and decree, dated 28.07.2000, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), No. 1, Kamrup, in Title Appeal No. 38/99, allowing the appeal and reversing thereby the judgment and decree, dated 26.03.99, passed, in Title Suit No. 17/87, whereby the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), No. 1, Kamrup, had decreed the suit on the ground that the defendants were defaulter in making payment of the rent.

2. The material facts and various stages, which have led to the present revision, may, in brief, be set out as follows:

(i) The plaintiffs instituted Title Suit No. 17/87 aforementioned, their case being, in brief, thus: the suit premises, originally, belonged to one Radha Mohan Goenka under whom late Hridayananda Bora, predecessor-in-interest of the defendants, was a tenant at a monthly rental of Rs. 175/-, the rent being payable by the first week of each succeeding month as per the English calendar. By a registered sale deed, dated 29.11.83, the said Radha Mohan Goenka transferred his rights, title and interest in the suit premises to the plaintiffs and thereby the plaintiffs became landlord of the defendants. By a registered notice, dated 15.12.94, the fact of purchase of the suit premises by the plaintiffs was conveyed to the defendants by the constituted attorney of their original landlord, namely, Radha Mohan Goenka. The defendants accordingly approached the plaintiffs and attorned to them as their landlord and promised to pay rent @ Rs. 175/- per month within the first week of every succeeding month as per the English calendar. The defendants also promised to enter into a fresh arrangement with the plaintiffs as regards their tenancy. The defendants, however, failed to make payment of rents from the month of December, 1983, and became defaulter. The plaintiffs, then, issued a registered notice to the defendants through their counsel demanding, inter alia, that the defendants vacate the suit premises. Though the defendants received the notice on 22.08.86, they did not vacate the suit premises. The plaintiffs, therefore, filed a suit for eviction of the defendants on the ground of default in making payment of the rents. Later on, the plaintiffs amended their plaint and further claimed that they needed the suit property bona fide for their own occupation and use.

(ii) The defendants resisted the suit by filing a joint written statement, their case, in their written statement, being to the effect that on receipt of the notice, dated 15.12.84, which was given to them by their original landlord's constituted attorney informing the defendants about the sale of the suit premises in favour of the plaintiffs, the defendant No. 2 went, on 22.12.84, to the shop of their original landlord, Radha Mohan Goenka and Biswa Nath Goenka, to seek clarification and also offered rent to them, but they refused to accept the rent and asked the defendant No. 2 to offer the rent to the plaintiffs. The defendant No. 2 accordingly went, on 07.01.85, to the plaintiffs and offered rents for the months of June, 1984, to December, 1984, but the plaintiffs refused to accept the rents so offered to them. The defendants denied that they had ever promised to enter into any fresh or new arrangement with the plaintiffs as their landlord. The further pleaded case of the defendants was that since the plaintiffs had refused to accept the rents offered to them by the defendants, the defendants applied to the Court in terms of Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, on 11.01.85 and, then, on being allowed by the Court, they deposited the rents in the Court. The defendants were, thus, asserted the defendants, not defaulters. The defendants accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit. While resisting the amendment of the plaint, the defendants filed an additional written statement contending, inter alia, that the suit premi