This is a second appeal The plaintiffs' case is as follows. The suit holding is a part of a two storeyed building at Tulapatty in Silchar town. The plaintiffs are the owners of the building. Defendant No. 1 was a monthly tenant of the suit holding at Rs. 15/- per month' ac­cording to the Bengali calendar. But sub­sequently he sub-let a part of the holding to defendant No. 2 at a monthly rent of Rs. 15/-. He also defaulted payment of rent and failed to pay the rent for the months of Baisakh and Jaistha, 1366 B. S. ' to the plaintiffs. Moreover, after obtaining settlement of the suit holding he arranged another house in the town for the purpose of his residence and used to stay there. On the other hand, the suit holding was required for the plaintiffs" own use and oc­cupation. The plaintiffs, therefore, served a notice upon the defendants terminating their tenancy and directing them to vacate the suit holding on the expiry of the month of Ashar 1366 B. S. But the defendant did not comply and hence the suit

2. Defendant No. 1 alone has contested the suit. He denies almost all the allega­tions made by the plaintiffs. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court, holding inter alia, that the suit notice was bad. Thereafter this Court on second appeal set aside the find­ing of the Courts below regarding the notice and sent back the suit for ascertain­ing whether the defendant was a defaulter within the meaning of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act 1955 (hereinafter called the Act), and whether he was evict-able under Section 6 (1) (f) of the Act and whether the landlords required the hold­ing for their bona fide needs. The trial Court answered the questions in the nega­tive and gave findings in favour of defen­dant No. 1 and sent the case to this Court with the said findings. The appeal came up before Goswami, J. and at his request it was referred to a Full Bench.

3. The suit was instituted on among other grounds the ground of default, the allegation being that the rent due for Bai­sakh and Jaistha were deposited in Court in Ashar. The question whether the de­fendants can be treated as defaulters is the only question that we have to consider, the other two findings being findings of facts.

4. Mr. Ghose, appearing on behalf of the defendants, submits that under the Act the defendants cannot be treated as de­faulters. It is necessary to refer to the re­levant provisions of the Act. The Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1955 was repealed by the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act of 1961. In the Act of 1955 the relevant sub-sections of Section 6 read as follows:

"6. Bar against passing and execution of decree and orders for ejection. (1) No order or decree for the recovery of posses­sion of any house shall be made or execut­ed by any Court so long as the tenant pays rent to the full extent allowable under this Act and performs the conditions of the tenancy;

Provided that nothing in this sub-sec­tion shall apply in a suit or proceedings for eviction of the tenant from the house:-

(a) where the tenant has done any act contrary to the provisions of clause (m), clause (o) or clause (p) of section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Act IV of 1882), or to the spirit of the aforesaid clauses in areas where the Act does not apply, or

(b) where the tenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or an annoy­ance to the occupiers of the adjoining or neighboring houses, or

(c) where the house is bona fide required by the landlord either for purposes of re­pairs or re-building, or for his own occupa­tion or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the house is held, or where the landlord can show any other cause which may be deemed satisfactory by the Court, or

(d) where the tenant sub-lets the house or any part thereof or otherwise transfers his interests in the house or any part there­of without permission in writing from the landlord, or

(e) where the tenant has not paid th