Heard Mr. S.P. Roy, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner (tenant). Also heard Mr. P.S. Deka, the learned Counsel representing the respondents (landlords).

2. The Title Suit 184/2001 was filed for ejectment of the tenant from the commercial premises measuring 23 ft. x 8 ft. in the Paltanbazar area of Guwahati. In the plaint, the landlord pleaded bona fide requirement and default of rent from October 2000 and accordingly ejectment and arrear house rent was claimed from the tenants. In the W.S., the defendant claimed that he tendered monthly rent of Rs.3000/- by cheque(s) from October 2000 to March 2001 and thereafter when the rent was refused, due rent were deposited in the Court w.e.f April 2001.

3. On the basis of the pleadings, the learned Trial Judge framed the following five Issues :

(a) Whether the suit is maintainable ?

(b) Is there any cause of action for the suit ?

(c) Whether the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiffs ?

(d) Whether the defendant has become a defaulter ?

(e) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree as prayed for?

4. The plaintiff No.2 examined herself as P.W.1 and 5 documents were exhibited. On the other hand, the defendant examined three witnesses and exhibited 10 documents.

5.1 The 4th Issue relating to defaulter was considered first and the learned Trial Judge observed that 6 cheques of Rs.3000/- each was issued by the tenant but the plaintiffs did not encash the same to deliberately make the tenant defaulter of rent. The Court also considered the two letters dated 4.4.2001 and 6.5.2001 (Exbt.-G) sent by the tenant to the 1st plaintiff Shah Md. Farid where the landlord was requested to present the cheques to the bank. But despite receipt of the registered envelop as proved from the Certificate issued by the Postal Authorities, the cheques were deliberately withheld from presentation by the landlords. Accordingly the learned Civil Judge Jr. Division No.1, Guwahati concluded that the tenant tendered the rent by cheques from October 2000 to March 2001 in due time but the plaintiffs did not encash them and from April 2001 onwards, the rent was deposited in Court. Thus the defaulter Issue was answered in favour of the tenant.

5.2 As the defendant had not denied that he is a tenant under the plaintiffs, the Court answered the Issue No.3 in the affirmative or in other words, it was held that the defendant is a tenant under the plaintiffs.

5.3 Although the plaintiffs did not press their plea of bona fide requirement, the Trial Court nevertheless discussed the 2nd Issue and held that the plaintiffs have other tenanted property and the small shop let out to the defendant may not be a bona fide requirement of the landlords.

5.4 On the basis of the above finding on the key issues, the ejectment suit was dismissed on 13.12.2006 (Annexure-16).

6. The aggrieved landlords then filed the Title Appeal NO.2/2007 and the learned Civil Judge No.1, Guwahati after due consideration on how the trial Court adjudicated the matter observed that, in the appellate proceedings three key points require consideration. They are :

(i) Whether there was any cause of action for the suit ?

(ii) Whether the respondent/defendant ha become defaulter by not paying the monthly rent of the suit premises to the landlord with the statutory period ?

(iii) Whether the appellants/plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for ejectment of the respondent/defendant from the suit shop house and recovery of arrear rent?

7.1 The above Point No.(i) & (ii) were analogously considered by the Appellate Court and the provisions of Section 5 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rent Act”) were noted and the Court observed that a tenant seeking protection from ejectment must establish that the rent was tendered in due time. The evidence of the tenant (D.W.1) was then considered who stated that on 2.4.2001, he learnt that the plaintiffs did not encash the tendered cheques for the monthly re