The duty of the tenant to deposit rent regularly and the consequences of non-compliance with the provisions of the Urban Areas Rent Control Act.

D. Biswas, J.

1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2004 passed by the learned District Judge, Karimganj in Title Appeal No. 8/2003.

2. I have heard Mr. DC Borah, learned Counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr. B.K. Goswami, learned senior counsel assisted by Mrs. T. Goswami, learned Counsel for the respondents.

3. The respondents, as plaintiffs, instituted Title Suit No. 306/83 in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 1, Karimganj praying for a decree for eviction of the principal defendants (revision petitioners), recovery of khas possession and for payment of arrear rent. Plaintiffs' case is that they are the owners of the suit premises which they inherited from their predecessor-in-interest. A part of the land and houses described in the schedule to the plaint was let out on rent to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on a rent of Rs. 65 per month. On the same terms and conditions, the other part was also let out to the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 on a rent of Rs. 65 per month. The rent, as agreed, was payable on the last day of every Bengali month. The defendant Nos. 1 and 2 paid rent till the month of Kartik 1389 B.S. in respect of one part and till the month of Kartik 1380 B.S. in respect of the other part. Thereafter, they defaulted, but continued to occupy the suit premises. Therefore, they are liable to be ejected from the said land.

4. The defendant Nos. 1, 9 and 10 contested the suit. Their case is that they have been occupying the suit premises by doing business in the name and style "Babujee Thakurjee Mistanna Bhandar" since the time of their predecessor Ram Badan Singh and they have been regularly paying the rent to the landlords. The plaintiffs used to purchase eatables from the shop of the defendant No. 1 and the value thereof was adjusted against the house rent. The defendant No. 1 has always paid rent as per convenience of the landlord, who used to collect the same either early of half-yearly. There was no definite mode of payment of rent.

5. The learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 1, Karimganj by the judgment dated 30.9.2002 dismissed the suit holding, inter alia, that the defendants are not defaulters.

6. The aforesaid judgment delivered by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 1, Karimganj was in challenge in Title Appeal No. 8/2003 before the learned District Judge, Karimganj. The learned District Judge by the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2004 allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) No. 1, Karimganj and decreed the suit for eviction and for arrears of rent. This revision has been preferred by the defendants challenging the aforesaid judgment of the learned First Appellate Court.

7. The powers of this Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is primarily limited to the question of jurisdiction. Interference with the judgment of the court below in exercise of powers under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is permissible when the subordinate court appears to have exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or to have failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested or to have acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularities.

8. During the course of submission, the question of jurisdiction has not been argued. There is also no dispute with regard to the jurisdiction. Mr. Borah, learned Counsel for the petitioners argued that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the defendants are defaulters. His argument is based on the proposition that the rent was never paid or collected from month to month and the same was adjusted against the amount due on account of purchase of eatables from the defendant's shop from time to time, either annually or half yearly. The mode of collection/payment of rent being uncertain, the learned First Appellate Court erred in coming to the conclusion that the petitioners are defaulters