The main legal point established in the judgment is that failure to follow the procedure for depositing rent in the court can make the tenant a defaulter, leading to the landlord's entitlement to a decree of eviction.

B.K. Sharma, J.

1. This revision application filed by the tenant/Defendant in the suit in question is directed against judgment and order passed by the appellate Court confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. Thus, this revision application being against the concurrent findings of fact towards decreeing the suit in favour of the landlord/opposite party, it is to be seen as to whether any interference is called for to such concurrent findings of fact exercising the revisional jurisdiction.

2. Adverting to the facts of the case, the opposite party herein as the Plaintiff filed the suit being Title Suit No. 82/01 before the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 1, Silchar against the Defendant/Petitioner for eviction from the suit premises. The suit was filed for eviction of the Defendant/Petitioner from the suit premises on twin grounds of bonafide requirement of the suit premises and default in payment in monthly rent. According to the Plaintiff/opposite party the Defendant paid monthly rent to him @ Rs. 575/- upto the month of August 1996 and thereafter the Defendant/Petitioner neither paid any rent to the Plaintiff nor tendered the same for any month to the Defendant and/or deposited in the Court. As regards the bonafide requirement of the suit premises, it was the case of the Plaintiff/opposite party that the same is required for his son who is unemployed.

3. The Defendant/Petitioner contested the suit by filing written statement denying both the grounds. Referring to the earlier suit filed by the Plaintiff/opposite party for ejectment of the Defendant, it was points out that the suit was dismissed. Be it stated here that the suit was of 1979 registered and numbered as Title suit No. 23/79. Being aggrieved by dismissal of the suit, the Plaintiff/opposite party filed Title appeal No. 79/82 and during the pendency of the appeal, a bilateral agreement was executed on 01.04.89 and the monthly rent of the suit premises was enhanced.

4. According to the written statement filed by the Defendant/Petitioner in the present suit, the Plaintiff/opposite party used to collect the same against the valid receipts within middle of the following English calendar month for which the rent became due. According to the Defendant/Petitioner, the Plaintiff/opposite party did not come to collect rent for the month of September, 1996 whereupon the Defendant personally offered Rs. 575/- in cash being the rent for September, 1996 to the Plaintiff on 11.10.96 and requested him to accept the same and issue receipt thereof. However the Plaintiff refused to accept and demanded higher rent. The Court was closed for the period from 12.10.96 to 10.11.96 for long Puja vacation and thus, the Defendant could not take any step for depositing the rent in the cost. However, he did so by depositing the rent for the month of September, 1996 vide case No. 605/96 on reopening of the Court after Puja vacation. Due intimation was also sent to the Plaintiff/opposite party. Thereafter, on refusal of the Plaintiff to accept the monthly rent, the Defendant kept on depositing the monthly rent in the Court with due intimation to the Plaintiff. Thus, it was contended that the Defendant was not defaulter.

5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Silchar, i.e. the Trial Court framed the following issues:

(1) Is there any cause of action for the suit?

(2) Is the suit maintainable?

(3) Is the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?

(4) Whether the suit property has been property described in the schedule of the plaint?

(5) Whether the Defendants are defaulter in respect of payment of monthly rent of the suit premises?

(6) Whether the Plaintiff is in bonafide requirement of the suit premises?

(7) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to any decree and/or any other reliefs as prayed for.

6. The issue Nos. 5 and 6 having been answered in favour of the Plaintiff/opposite party, the suit was decreed in favour of th