Heard Mr. P. Deka, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner (plaintiff). Also heard Ms. P. Chakraborty, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents (defendants).

2. The respondents are the tenants in respect of the Assam Type House under Holding No.326, Ward No.23 of Silchar town where the tenants and their predecessor operated a grocery shop in the suit premises. The Title Suit No.75/2004 was filed by the landlord under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rent Act”) for ejectment of the tenant by pleading rent default from April 2004 to July 2004 and also claiming bona fide requirement for the business of the plaintiff’s 2nd son Archit Bose. The original tenant Sunil Dey was the predecessor of the respondents and after his death on 3.6.2004, the defendants became the successor tenants. According to the landlord, the rent was regularly received from the tenant Sunil Dey until March 2004 but thereafter when the tenant fell ill, the rent remained unpaid from April 2004 and the successors did not make the payment despite demand of the landlord. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff’s younger son has remained unemployed since he graduated in 1997 and therefore the suit premises in the business area of the Silchar town was needed for the new business to be set up by the unemployed son of the plaintiff.

3. After receiving summons from the Court, the defendants appeared and in their joint Written Statement (W.S.), they denied the allegation of rent default. The defendants pleaded that there was no fixed date or mode of rent payment and it was paid on landlord’s demand and there are instances of the landlord collecting 14 months’ and 16 months’ rent respectively, at one go. For the unpaid rent preceding the ejectment suit, the W.S. stated that in April, 2004, the original tenant Sunil Dey fell seriously ill and during his treatment, the plaintiff met the defendants and assured that the rent need not be paid until the tenant recovers. Believing the landlord’s utterances on account of their long standing relationship, the rent due for 2/3 months were not paid while Sunil Dey was ill. But after the ailing tenant died on 3.6.2004, the defendants tendered the rent for April, May and June 2004. But the landlord refused to accept the same by stating that he will collect rent during Durga Puja when he will be in need of money. Then the defendants offered Rs.3,500/- in cash as 7 months’ accumulated rent from April to October 2004 @Rs.500/- P.M., but the landlord refused to accept the same by informing that he has filed an ejectment suit in the meantime because of the rent default for the previous months. Thereafter the defendants deposited the rent for April to October 2004 in Court through Misc.(RC) Case No.582(A)/2004. The rent for next 5 months i.e. Nov 2004 to March 2005 was also deposited in Court through Misc.(RC) Case No.673/2004.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings of the contestants, the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No.1 framed the following issues :

1. Is there any cause of action for the suit ?

2. Is the suit barred by limitation?

3. Whether the suit is maintainable in the present form and manner ?

4. Whether the defendants are defaulter in payment of rent of the suit room?

5. Whether the usit room is required for bonafide purpose?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get any relief as prayed for?

7. To what relief/reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?

5. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined himself and his son and also adduced some documentary evidence. The defendants examined one witness and also adduced some Exhibits to prove of their own case.

6.1 The leaned Trial Judge after considering the evidence declared that there is proper cause of action for the ejectment suit and the same is maintainable. On the 4th issue of rent default, the Trial Court considered the two rent receipts (Exbt.A & B) which reflects that rent for several month