The provisions of Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1961, which prescribe the conditions precedent for a tenant to be protected from eviction, are mandatory.

ORDER:- This revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is by the defendant-tenant against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and confirmed by the appellate court.

2. The intrinsic facts to get a grip of the questions of law raised by the petitioner : The plaintiff filed the ejectment suit, claimed arrears of rent, compensation and ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant was a monthly tenant, the fenancy commenced from the 1st day of every English Calendar month, the rent was fixed at Rs. 300/- payable within the first week of the succeeding month. The defendant was an inveterate defaulter in payment of rent and the plaintiff had to exercise much to recover the arrears. When the defendant defaulted to pay rent for December 1971 and January 1972 within the stipulated time he had to serve quit notice to the defendant demanding delivery of possession of the premises on the expiry of the month of Feb. 1972. The defendant received the notice but did not comply with the terms thereof and hence the suit.

The Defendant filed written statement and contested the suit. He admitted clearly (1) that he was a monthly tenant, and, (2) that the stipulated rent was Rs. 300/- per month. However, he contended that the mode or method of payment of rent was altered as desired by the plaintiff. According to him the plaintiff had asked him to make lump sum payment of rent instead of monthly payment and it became the practice. He claimed that on receipt of the notice of ejectment he offered the rent to the plaintiff and on his refusal to accept the same he deposited then in court as required under the Rent Control Act.

3. The trial court reached the following conclusions and decreed the suit with costs : (1) that the defendant was a monthly tenant; (2) that the rent was payable by the first week of the succeeding month; (3) that the stipulated monthly rent was Rs. 300/-, (4) that the avowal of the defendant that the plaintiff had consented to accept rent in lump sum was not tenable; (5) that the defendant had failed to deposit the rent for the months of December, 1971 and January, 1975 within the stipulated period and was a defaulter liable to be ejected under the law; (6) that the defendant could not establish that he ever offered the rent for the months in question before depositing it in court; (7) that the defendant deposited rent for the said months on 18-2-1972 only after receipt of the notice on 7-2-1972 without offering the rent to the landlord and became a defaulter liable to be ejected; and, (8) that the quit notice validly terminated the tenancy. The learned Munsiff decreed the suit with costs. There was an abortive appeal and hence the revision.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has put forward the following contentions; (1) that there was no finding as to what was the "rent allowable under the Act", the courts below were obliged to consider what was the "fair rent" and without determination of the question the courts had no jurisdiction to decree the suit, and, (2) that the defendant having deposited the rent into court on 18-2-1972 as required under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1961, for short "the Act", was not a defaulter and the court had no jurisdiction to pass the ejectment decree. No other point has been urged.

5. The first contention is heard to be rejected. The defendant admitted in his written statement that he was a monthly tenant and the stipulated rent was Rs. 300/- per month. The defendant never questioned that the agreed rent was high and not "fair rent" as contemplated under "the Act". Naturally he did not ask for fixation of fair rent. No issue was framed and accordingly no occassion arose to determine the fair rent of the suit premises. The point is taken for the first time in revision. The defendant merely asserted that the made of payment of rent was altered to lump sum payment of rent instead of monthly payment in the