The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a tenant to fulfill specific conditions for a valid deposit of rent under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972.

1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred challenging the concurrent findings of the learned two courts below whereby the eviction of the present petitioners was decreed. Both the courts held that the tenant is a defaulter.

2. Bhupen Singh Kuthari, the predecessor of the present opposite parties, as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.171/1994 against Chiranjilal Sarma, the predecessor of the present petitioners, praying for a decree of ejectment and for realization of arrear rent along with compensation. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had been in occupation of the shop room at a monthly rental of Rs.125/- according to English calendar month and year. The tenancy was created verbally and the tenant had agreed to vacate the premises as and when asked for. The suit room is actually a passage meant for ingress and egress of the plaintiff but as the tenant did not agree to vacate the plaintiff became compelled to make use of another passage belonging to Smti. Prasanna Kumari Kuthari on payment of monthly rent of Rs.125/-. Moreover, the defendant failed to tender rent to the plaintiff since April, 1982 and thus became a defaulter. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff served notice to the defendant through his counsel on 21.07.1993 asking him to vacate the premises, however, to no avail. The plaintiff, thereafter, served yet another notice on 24.02.1994 through his advocate terminating tenancy of the defendant and asked him to vacate the suit premises after expiry of 31.03.1994. The tenant did not comply with the demand and accordingly the suit was instituted for recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendant and also for realization of arrear rent from May, 1991 and April, 1994 along with compensation etc.

3. On being summoned the sole defendant appeared and submitted written statement. While denying all the averments made in the plaint the defendant stated that he paid rent regularly to the plaintiff and had obtained receipts thereof. But the rent for the month of March, 1982 was tendered to the plaintiff who refused to accept the same and as such the defendant deposited the rent as required under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) within the stipulated period with process fee after observing all the legal formalities. The defendant has been regularly depositing rent in Court since then performing all the formalities and so he is not a defaulter. The defendant also denied the averments in regard to bonafide requirement of the plaintiff and prayed that the suit be dismissed with compensatory cost under Section 35A of the Code.

4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed as many as seven issues and the same are quoted below :-

“1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form?

2. Whether there is a cause of action for the suit?

3. Whether the defendant is a defaulter as alleged by the plaintiff?

4. Whether the suit premises is bonafide required by the plaintiff?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs.4,500/- from the defendant as arrear rent?

6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for?

7. To what relief/reliefs, if any, parties are entitled?”

5. Both sides examined one witness each and exhibited documents in support of their respective claim. During the course of the trial the original plaintiff died and thereupon his legal heirs were impleaded as the plaintiffs. One Subodh Singh Kuthari being son of the original plaintiff was examined as PW 1. He stated the pleaded facts in his examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit and thereupon he was duly cross-examined by the defendant. The defendant having been died during the pendency of the suit his son Shyam Sundar Sharma was impleaded by way of substitution and he examined himself as DW 1. He also relied on the statement made by him in the line of the plead