Eviction can be justified on the ground of sub-letting, irrespective of other factors such as default in rent payment or the landlord's bona fide requirement of the premises.

The judgment and decree dated 1.7.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Karimganj, in Title Appeal No. 44 of 1997 affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.9.1997, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Karimganj, in Title Suit No. 166 of 1994, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff, are the subject-matters under challenge in this revision petition.

2. Upon hearing Mr B.R. Dey, learned counsel for the petitioners, and also on persual of the available materials on record, I am of the view that this petition can be disposed of at the motion stage considering the simple nature of the case and simple questions of law involved in the case and, accordingly, this revision petition is disposed of with the following orders.

3. The plaintiff (opposite party No. 1 herein filed a suit being TS No. 166/1994 before the trial Court by invoking the provisions of law laid down under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, (for short, "the Act, 1972) for eviction of the defendants (petitioners herein) from the suit premises and for recovery of Rs. 17007- towards arrear rents for the period from Falguna, 1400 BS to Jaistha, 1401 BS by contending, inter alia, that the defendant No. 1, Smt Pratima Palit, petitioner No. 1 herein, took the suit house/ premises on monthly rent from plaintiff-opposite party No. 1, and the defendant No. 1 started her business of selling of electrical goods and lubricants business in the suit premises under the name and style "M/s. D.P. Enterprises", and the defendant No. 2 (petitioner No. 2 herein) being the power of attorney holder of petitioner No. 1, has been managing the said business, and the monthly rent was enhanced subsequently to the tune of Rs. 425/- per month and the defendant No. 1 paid the monthly rent upto the month of Magha, 1400 BS, but the defendant No. 1 failed to pay the rent from the month of Falguna, 1400 BS, and apart from that the petitioner/ defendant No. 2 also illegally and without the consent of the plaintiff/opp. party No. 1 sub-let a portion of the suit house on 7.8.1989 to the proforma-defendant No. 3, namely, Sri Hiranmoy Sutradhar and, accordingly, proforma defendant No. 3 started clock and watch business in the said suit premises under the name and style "M/s Time Corner".

4. The case of the plaintiff was contested mainly by the defendants -1 and 2 as proforma defendant No. 3 did not file his written-statement and the contesting defendants-1 and 2 (petitioners herein) admitted that the plaintiff is the land-lord and they are the tenants in respect of the suit premises and they denied the factum of sub-letting as well as the allegation regarding defaulter in payment of rent for the aforesaid periods, mentioned above, and further contended that the defendants paid the rent for the period from Falguna, 1400 BS to Baishakh, 1400 BS, and the plaintiff issued receipts to the aforesaid effect. It was also the case of the defendants-1 and 2 that rent for the month of Jaishtha, 1400 BS was deposited in the court as the plaintiff refused to accept the same. According to defendants-1 and 2, the suit premises was not required by the plaintiff, and there is no material for establishing the factum of bona fide requirement of the suit premises. The suit was decreed by the trial court below under the related judgment and decree. Being dissatisfied with the related judgment and decree, the present petitioners preferred appeal before the first appellate court, and the first appellate court also affirmed the related judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court below under the impugned judgment and decree dated 1.7.2002. Hence, the present revision petition.

5. Supporting the case of the petitioners, Mr. B.R. Dey, learned counsel, submitted that both the courts below erred in law and facts while passing the related judgments and decrees inasmuch as without proper adjustment of the Salami to the tune of Rs. 10,0007- (advance money paid by the defen