This revision application, at the instance of the defendant, is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18.3.97 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Title Appeal No. 1 of 1994. The judgment and decree dated 1.12.93 passed by the learned Sadar Munsiff in Title Suit No. 24 of 1986 dismissing the plaintiffs suit having been reversed by the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.3.97, the present revision has been filed.

2. Title Suit No. 24 of 1986 was instituted by the present opposite parties as plaintiffs praying for a decree of eviction of the present petitioner i.e. the defendant in the suit. According to the plaintiffs, the defendant was a tenant in respect of the suit premises and as per the agreement between the parties, rent was required to be paid after the expiry of each month according to English calendar. The defendant, it was alleged, failed to pay rent for the month of June, 1985 and, therefore, had become a defaulter and was liable to be evicted under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. The plaintiffs had further averred in the plaint filed that the suit premises were required by them for the purposes of their business after reconstruction and hence, they were in bonafide need of the suit premises.

The claims made in the suit were resisted by the present petitioner as the defendant by filing a written statement. In the written statement filed, it was contended that the plaintiffs' suit is not maintainable as the plaintiffs are only two of the sons of late Poonam Chand Bothra, the original landlord. According to the defendant, another son of the original landlord was not impleaded in the suit for which reason, the suit has to fail. The allegations of default were denied and it was contended that the rent for the month of June, 1985 was tendered in the 1st week of July, 1985. However, the plaintiffs-landlord refused to accept the rent tendered whereafter it was deposited in Court in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(4) of the Act. The defendant also denied the assertion made in the plaint that the suit premises is bonafide required by the plaintiffs for reconstruction with a view to expanding their business. It is the specific case of the defendant in the suit that the plaintiffs were the owners of other RCC buildings located near the suit premise which property could be effectively utilised by the plaintiffs for the purposes of their business.

3. On the basis of the rival pleadings of the parties, as many as 9 (nine) issues were framed for trial. Oral and documentary evidence were placed on record by the rival parties. The learned trial Court by the judgment and decree dated 1.12.93 dismissed the suit, inter alia, on the ground that as one of the sons of the original landlord was not impleaded as a plaintiff in the suit, the plaintiffs' suit has to fail. Notwithstanding the above finding, the learned trial Court thought it proper to go into the specific issues of default and bonafide requirement framed in the suit and on a consideration of the materials on record thought it proper to decide both the issues against the plaintiffs.

Aggrieved, the impugned judgment and decree dated 1.12.93 passed by the learned trial Court was challenged by filing Title Appeal No. 1 of 1994. The learned lower appellate Court by the impugned judgment and decree dated 18.3.97 held the plaintiffs' suit to be maintainable in law. The learned lower appellate Court while finding the issue relating to default against the plaintiffs however, found the issue on the point of bonafide requirement in favour of the plaintiffs and on that basis, decreed the suit for eviction of the defendant.

4. Mr A.R. Banerjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the revision petitioner, in support of the challenge made, has argued that the learned lower appellate Court has gone clearly wrong in holding the plaintiff's suit to be maintainable. The plaintiffs (2 in number)