Amitava Roy, J.

1. The petitioners-defendants/tenants challenge the judgment and order dated 12.1.2005 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nagaon in Title Appeal No. 21/2003 affirming the judgment and decree dated 3.3.2003 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division No. 1), Nagaon in Title Suit No. 2/2000 thereby decreeing the suit for their ejectment from the premises involved.

2. I have heard Mr. B.K. Gowami, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. T. Goswami, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Goswami, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. A.K. Sharma, Advocate for the respondents. The pleaded versions of the parties ought to be noticed before evaluating the competing arguments.

3. The predecessor in interest of the respondent Nos. 1 to 4 i.e. Hemanta Kumar Barman (since deceased) and other respondents instituted the aforementioned suit against the petitioners as defendants praying for a decree inter alia for their ejectment from the suit premises described therein and for arrear rent of Rs. 16,710/- together with interest @ per annum. According to them, the petitioners were tenants under them at an yearly rent fixed at Rs. 5570/- being from 1st August to 31st July of every English calendar year. They stated that the tenancy commenced from 1.8.82 between Kumud Barman their predecessor in interest and Siranjilal Bajaj, father of the petitioner No. 1/defendant No. 1. On the death of Kumud Barman, the properties including the suit premises developed on them, whereafter Siranjilal Bajaj attorned to them as their landlord. On the death of Siranjilal Bajaj the petitioner No. 1/defendant No. 1 constituted a partnership along with his brother Joy Krishan Bajaj and sister in law Mrs. Usha Bajaj and carried on the business of grocery in the suit house. The petitioner No. 1/defendant No. 1 requested the plaintiffs verbally to allow him to occupy the suit premises on the previous terms of lease which was acceded to. The respondents plaintiffs alleged default in payment of rent since 1.8.89 inspite of repeated demands and that with lapse of time payment of the rent in arrear had become barred by limitation. They maintained that the young children of their family were unemployed. Besides Smti Promila Barman widow of Pradip Barman (son of Kumud Barman) was unemployed. Hemanta Kumar Barman (since deceased original plaintiff No. 1) was also going to be retired shortly and that the rooms were necessary to accommodate them. They asserted that the suit house was required to make adequate arrangement for the occupation of the family by reconstructing and renovating the same. The reliefs as referred to above were prayed for on the ground of default in payment of rent and bonafide requirement.

4. The petitioners defendants in their written statement questioned the maintainability of the suit on the ground of misjoinder and nonjoinder of necessary parties, want of material facts and non disclosure of any specific cause of action. They, however admitted to be the tenants under the plaintiffs in respect of the suit premises. They denied the allegations of default and the bonafide need of the suit premises and averred that the tenancy between the predecessor in interest of the parties had in fact been initiated in the year 1952 with an yearly rent of Rs. 1600/-. According to them, the suit premises originally was comprised of a reinforced building with two rooms one each in the ground floor and the first floor together with C.I. sheet godown and cook shed. The yearly rent of Rs. 1600/- was enhanced from time to time and on 18.11.1982 a registered deed of lease was executed for a period of 7 years commencing from 1.8.82 wherein the rent for the first two years with effect from 31.7.84 was to be paid @ Rs. 7000/- per year and for the next 5 years @ Rs. 9000/- annually. According to the petitioners defendants the rent was to be paid in the month of August each year and that the enhanced rent of Rs. 9000/- was payable for causing rep