The main legal point established in the judgment is that the deposit of rent in court under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act must be accompanied by proper notice and process fees, and failure to do so would result in the tenant being treated as a defaulter.

A.H. Saikia, J.

1. Heard Mr. H. Deka, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. M. Islam, learned Counsel for the Petitioners. Also heard Mr. A.K. Goswami, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. S. Banik, learned Counsel for the Respondent.

2. This revision petition under Section 115 read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2002 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) No. 1, Silchar in T.A. No. 6/ 2002 dismissing the appeal and thereby affirming the judgment and decree dated 24.12.2001 and 7.1.2002 respectively passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), No. 1, Silchar in T.S. No. 7/98.

3. The moot question involved in this case as to whether the Defendant/Petitioners were defaulter though they paid their rent both for current month as well as for another five months in advance in the court by way of depositing the rent through non-judicial case being Misc. Case No. 607/95. Admittedly both the Courts below held that the Petitioners were defaulters.

4. The case of the Petitioners is that they, being the tenant under the Plaintiff/Respondent, were required to pay monthly rent of Rs. 110/- to the Respondent within first seven days of the succeeding month according to Bengali calendar. In the month of 'Kartik' 1402 BS, when the landlady/Respondent refused to accept the rent and due to strained relationship between the landlady and tenants, the Petitioners/tenants having no other alternative, deposited the rent for the month of 'Kartik', 1402 BS together with rents for other succeeding five months till 'Chaitra' 1402 BS in the court.

5. It is admitted by the Petitioners that while depositing the rent in question in the court, they did not take any steps for service of notice upon the Respondent for which Misc. Case No. 607/95 by which the above mentioned rents from the month of 'Kartik' to 'Chitra' 1402 BS deposited, was dismissed/filed by the court vide order dated 18.11.1996.

6. Thereafter, the Respondent as Plaintiff filed the instant Title Suit praying for eviction of the Petitioners from the premises under rent on the sole ground of defaulter as the Petitioners failed to pay the rent as required under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (for short, "the Act').

7. Assailing the impugned judgment and decree of the court below, Mr. Deka, learned Senior counsel for the Petitioners has forcefully argued that the learned court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in non-consideration of his deposit for the month of 'Kartik' together with the subsequent months till 'Chaitra' in advance, as a valid deposit.

8. Admitting the non-issuance of notice as required under the law, learned Senior counsel has also submitted that such non-issuance of notice may be treated as a technical one and that the same was not a wilful default as the Petitioners/Defendant had to accompany his ailing uncle for Chennai for medical treatment during that relevant period. Besides, it is also argued that Petitioners had invested a huge amount of money for restoration of electrical connection which was disconnected by the Assam State Electricity Board due to a fire incident that took place in the rented premises as the electricity was not restored by the landlady despite repeated requests by the Defendant/Petitioners. As such, the action of restoration of electric supply was taken by the Petitioners themselves as per direction of the trial court before which Petitioners had pleaded for such restoration and the said trial court was pleased to pass a direction for such investment as well as also directed the landlady to adjust an amount of Rs. 50/ - against the total rent of Rs. 110/-.

9. According to Mr. Deka, once the Petitioners have invested the said sum of money, being a total amount of Rs. 2,100/-, the same ought to have been taken as an amount already deposited with the landlady for the purpose of rent and accordingly Petitioners should not have been declared as de