This civil revision has been filed by the landlord. A suit was filed being Title Suit No.230 of 1985 in the Court of Munisff No. 1. Karimganj for ejectment of the defendant/respondent. The grounds of ejectment were as follows :

(i) That the tenant was default in payment of rent for the month of Srabana. Bhadra and Aswin 1388 BS.

(ii) That the house in question is required bona fide for the purpose of construction and expansion of the business of the plaintiffs.

2. The defendant filed a written statement denying both the allegations. The learned Munsiff by judgment dated 2.5.89 decreed the suit holding inter alia as follows :

(i) That the agreed date of payment of rent is admittedly within 7 days of the Bengali month next following the month of tenancy.

(ii) That the rent was not paid in accordance with the law and as such the defendant is a defaulter.

(iii) It was also found that it was not established that the rent was refused by the landlord and in that connection, the trial Court found that the money was sent by money order was not established.

(iv) It was found that the house in question is required bona fide by the plaintiffs.

3. There was an appeal being Title Appeal No.46 of 1989 before the learned Assistant District Judge at Karimganj. The learned Assistant District Judge on consideration of materials on record came to the finding that the plea of bona fide requirement was not established. He also found that there was no clear norms of accepting the rent and the plaintiffs have taken rent for 2 months. 3 months. 4 months, or 6 months as and when required. He found that there was no fixed date of payment of rent and as such the deposit of rent in Court is valid in the eye of law. Regarding bona fide requirement, it was found that this plea was not established.

4. I have heard Shri NM Lahiri. learned Advocate for the petitioner and Shri JP Bhattacharjee, learned Advocate for the opposite party/respondent. Shri Lahiri. learned Advocate for the petitioner in his usual fairness submits that the finding arrived at by the appellate Court on the plea of bonafide requirement is basically finding of fact and he also submitted that it cannot be said that in the instant case this finding is a perverse finding. Learned Judge considered the materials on record and having considered materials on record arrived at the finding. Another Court on consideration of the materials on record may take a different view but that will not make it perverse as such for the disposal of this case it is not necessary to consider this plea but Shri Lahiri strenuously urged that the defendant/tenant is a defaulter in the eye of law and on this ground he urged that this revision is to be allowed and suit has to be decreed. Regarding default Shri Lahiri makes the, following sumissions :

(i) There is a written contract regarding payment of rent and that written contracts provides that the rent is to be paid within 7 days of the succeeding Bengali month. Mere acceptance of rent as and when offered by the tenant shall not wipe out this written contract regarding mode of payment of rent.

(ii) Before deposit of rent in Court the tenant is bound to establish that there was refusal of rent by the landlord. Shri Lahiri submits that this refusal of the rent by the landlord was not established and in that view of the matter the deposit of rent cannot be deemed to be a valid deposit.

(iii) That the rents for three months were deposited together and written notices were also not furnished and as such this deposit is not a valid deposit.

5. On the otherhand. Sri JP Bhattacharjee. learned Advocate for the respondents submits that the parties by their conduct may bring to existence a different contract regarding payment of rent and such a long standing conduct regarding acceptance of rent will show that there was no fixed date regarding payment of rent, the question of default in such a situation shall not arise. Regarding refusal by the landlord he submits that the rent was sent by

Click Here to Read the rest of this document