The main legal point established in the judgment is the determination of the landlord and tenant relationship based on the sale deed and lease agreement, and the applicability of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act in regulating the rights and remedies of the landlord and tenant.

H.N. Sarma, J.

1. This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner tenant praying for revising the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Divn, No. 1, Silchar, Cachar in Title Appeal No. 23/99 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 16-2-1999 and 2-3-1999 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jr. Divn. No. 2, Silchar in Title Suit No. 93/95 decreeing the suit for eviction of the petitioner defendant, under the revisional jurisdiction of this High Court in exercise of power under Section 115 of the CPC.

2. I have heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. BC Das, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. Mr. N. Choudhury during the course of his argument led me to the facts of the case to some extent. It appears from the record that Title Suit No. 93/95 was filed by the respondent landlord in the court of Sadr Munsiff No. 1, Silchar impleading the petitioner as defendant. Initially the suit was filed against the petitioner but later on by way of amendment the pro forma respondent No. 2 was also impleaded as defendant No. 2 in the suit. The plaintiff's suit, inter alia, is that the plaintiff is the owner of the land described in the schedule of the plaint with existing structures thereon and he purchased the same from the defendant No. 2, i.e. the pro forma respondent No. 2 in this petition, by sale deed executed on 25-7-1984 being No. 5469 of the year 84 which was exhibited as Ext-1 in the suit. The defendant No. 2 is the wife of the defendant No. 1. On the request of the defendant the plaintiff allowed the defendant to occupy the suit premises as a monthly tenant at the rate of Rs. 200 per month according to English calendar and the terms and conditions of the tenancy were incorporated by executing a deed of agreement commonly known as Kerayanama, which is exhibited as Ext-2 in the case. The said agreement Ext-2 contains the necessary terms and conditions of the tenancy. It is also pleaded that after purchase of the said land in the manner aforesaid the holding was registered in the name of the defendant as owner in the record of the Silchar Municipal Board. The defendant paid rent regularly against the receipt granted by the plaintiff and the rent was paid upto July 1994 and thereafter in spite of demands the defendant did not pay any rent from August 1994 to May 1995. Accordingly the defendant became a defaulter for non-payment of rent. In the said premises the plaintiff prayed for a decree for ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises and for payment of arrears of rent amounting to Rs. 2000 with compensation of Rs. 500 and the cost of the suit.

3. The defendant No. 1 filed written statement in the suit whereas defendant No. 2 did not set up any case by submitting pleadings. Along with usual defence the defendant petitioner stated in his written statement that the defendant petitioner is not a tenant in respect of the suit premises. Defendant also denied the sale deed by which the plaintiff purchased the suit premises. The defendant also denied the execution of the Ext-2 Kerayanama between the parties on 28-7-1984 as alleged by the plaintiff. It is the case of the defendant that the sale deed and the Kerayanama, Exts-1 and 2, are nothing but documents of simple mortgage of the suit property and in fact the defendant denied the title of the plaintiff over the suit land. In para 16 of the written statement the defendant pleaded his case as follows :-

"16. That the sale dated 25.7.84 and the deed of Bharanama dated 28.7.1984 are one and the same transaction and the transaction is nothing but a simple mortgage of the properties described in the schedule of the document and the plaintiff is not an owner in possession of the properties by right of purchase. But in reality he is a mortgagee and the properties involved therein is a security for repayment of the loan aforementioned and in the circumstances the alleged bharanama