1. Heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. N. Modi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Sarma, learned counsel representing the respondent.

2. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18/03/2015 passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Appeal No.61/2013, affirming the judgment and decree dated 06/08/2013 passed by the Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 51/2007, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff for ejectment of the petitioner.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the predecessor of the petitioner/defendant had entered as a tenant in respect of the suit premises under the predecessor-in-terest of the plaintiff on condition of paying monthly rent as per English calendar. The tenancy had commenced in the year 1957 and thereafter, the rent was increased from time to time with the agreed rent being fixed at Rs.2000/- per month. According to the plaintiff, one of the conditions of tenancy was that the defendant would vacate the same on being requested to do so by the landlord and that the monthly rent was to be paid in cash.

4. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had failed to pay the rent for the month of April, 2004, as a result of which a notice demanding payment of rent was sent by the plaintiff which was also received by the defendant on 09/10/2004. However, despite receipt of the same, the defendant had failed to deposit the rent. On 13/10/2004, although the defendant had sent a bank draft for an amount of Rs.12,000/- being the arrear rent for the tenanted premises for the months of April, 2004 to September, 2004, yet, the plaintiff did not encash the same as payment of rent by way of demand draft was against the agreed mode of payment of rent. On 29/10/2004, the defendant had sent another bank draft for an amount of Rs.2,000/- being the monthly rent for the month of October, 2004 but the same was also not encashed by the plaintiff for the same reason. On the contrary, the plaintiff had issued a registered letter dated 29/10/2004 requesting the defendant to make payment of the rent in cash and take back the bank drafts, which letter was also duly received by the defendant on 01/11/2004 but the defendant had failed to comply with the same and instead started depositing the rent in the Court without tendering the same before the landlord. Since the rent for the months of April, 2004 till November, 2004 had been deposited in the Court by the defendant in the month of October, 2004 and November, 2004 without offering the same to the landlord, hence, according to the plaintiff, the defendant had become a defaulter in the eye of law. The plaintiff’s further case was that the tenanted premises have become very old and dilapidated structure warranting immediate repair. The plaintiff was desirous of constructing a multi-storied building by demolishing the tenanted house and use the property in a more beneficial manner since the same was located in the heart of Dibrugarh town. Hence, the plaintiff had also claimed bonafide requirement of the suit premises. Situated thus, the plaintiff had intstituted Title Suit No. 51/07 (old Title Suit No. 57/2005) for ejectment of the defendant and for recovery of arrear rent of Rs.38,000/- besides other consequential relief.

5. On receipt of summon, the defendant had entered appearance and contested the suit by filing writing statement, thereby denying the averments made in the plaint. The stand of the defendant was that Shri Shiva Kumar Jain, the proprietor of the defendant firm had paid rent up to the month of March, 2004, which was also duly accepted by the landlord but, when the rent for the month of April, 2004 was tendered before the landlord, viz. Bhagabati Prasad Kedia, the same was not accepted by him on the ground that there was a family settlement in progress and as such the de