The petitioner is a tenant against whom a suit for eviction from one room out of a four-roomed house was described in Schedule A of the plaint was filed. The eviction was sought on the usual two grounds of the defendant-tenant being a defaulter and the premises being needed bonafide. The suit was initially decreed by the learned trial court but on appeal the case was remanded to the learned court below to decide certain points. The learned Munsiff gave the findings on these points and the matter came back to the learned Assistant District Judge who by the impugned order has upheld the decree for eviction. Feeling aggrieved, this Court has been approached in revision.

2. In so far as the ground of eviction relating to bonafide requirement is concerned, the learned Assistant District Judge who decided the matter on the second occasion has stated that the bonafide requirement was not proved to his satisfaction. This being a finding of fact has not been assailed before me, and rightly, by Shri Sarma appearing for the respondents.

3. In so far as default is concerned, though none of the learned courts below applied its mind to the deposit of rent in court, nontheless they have arrived at the finding that the rent had never been tendered to the plaintiff-landlord and as such it cannot be said that the rent was refused by the landlord. As the two courts below have not applied their minds to the deposits made in the court I have gone through the same. Exts. ka(11) to ka (15) do show that the deposits were within time inasmuch as the rent for the month of Kartick 1384 BS corresponding to English month 18.10.77 to 16.11.77 was paid on 29.11.77. It may be stated that according to the plaintiff the default was from the month of Kartick to Falgun, 1384 BS. The deposit for the month of Agrahan was made on 2.1.78 and as that month had ended on 16.12.77 this deposit can be regarded as within time as the Court reopened on the New Year on 2.1.78. Similarly for the month of Posha the deposit was made on 28.1.78, whereas the last day as per the English month was 14.1.78. For the month of Magha the deposit was made on 23.2.78, whereas the last day as per the English calender was 12.2.78. The deposit for Falgum was also within time as it was made on 23.3.78 whereas that month had ended on 14.3.78. It would thus be seen that the deposits were within a fortnight of their becoming due even if it is conceded that the agreement was to pay the monthly rent at the close of the month.

4. Shri Sarma appearing for the respondent however submits that as there is no evidence to show that the rent on being offered to the plaintiff-landlord had been refused, which ingredient is also necessary to satisfy the requirement of section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, hereinafter the Act, which states that where the landlord refuses to accept the lawful rent offered by his tenant, the tenant may within a fortnight of its becoming due deposit the same in the Court. As to the fact whether the landlord bad refused to accept rent, Shri Sarma has drawn my attention first to the finding of the learned Munsiff in the first judgment wherein it has been stated under Issue No. 5 that in croses-examination defendant Jogesh Chandra Dey himself admitted that he had not tendered any rent to the plantiff-after the purchase of the suit room. The finding of the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1 who dealt with the matter in the first instance is that the defendant himself admitted that he had not offered any rent to the plaintiff. Finally the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1 who dealt with the matter en the second occasion has also stated that the defendant nowhere stated that he had tendered rent to the plaintiff who refused to accept it. It has therefore to be accepted that there was no evidence to show that the plaintiff had refused to accept the rent. This being the position, it is contended by Shri Sarma that toe deposit of rent even if the same was wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document