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

2. This revision petition has been preferred against the concurrent judgment and decree dated 31/03/2015 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Appeal No. 40/2010 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 25/08/2012 passed by the Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 03/2003 decreeing the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for ejectment and for recovery of arrear rent with other consequential relief.

3. The brief facts of the case is that the predecessor- in- interest of the defendants, viz. Madal Lal Khejriwal entered as a tenant under the plaintiff, Radheshyam Paul, in respect of a room measuring 30” x 12” on condition of paying rent on month to month basis. The tenancy had commenced on the strength of an agreement executed on 01/04/1973 whereby, the agreed rent was initially fixed at Rs. 250/- per month. However, subsequently, with effect from 01/01/1985, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 400/- per month. After the demise of Madal Lal Khejriwal in the year 1990, the defendants continued as tenants under the plaintiff by paying the same rent by ignoring the repeated demand made by the plaintiff for signing fresh agreement of tenancy. The defendants had even neglected to pay the monthly rent to the plaintiff since the month of January, 1997, as a result of which the plaintiff had to issue a notice on 25/09/1992 calling upon the defendants to quit the tenanted premises but the same was not followed. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendants had become defaulter in the eye of law due to non-payment of monthly rent in respect of the suit premises since January, 1997. Besides the above, the suit premises was in a dilapidated condition requiring urgent repair and renovation. The plaintiff had also claimed that due to extension of his family, the tenanted premises were also bonafide required by the plaintiff for his own use. On the basis of such pleadings, the plaintiff had instituted the suit for ejectment of the defendants from the suit premises and also for recovery of arrear rent of an amount of Rs. 14,400/-.

4. On receipt of summons, the defendant nos. 1 and 2 had entered appearance and contested the suit while the defendant No. 3 choose not to appear. The defendant nos. 1 and 2 filed joint written statement denying the allegations made by the plaintiff and on the contrary, gave an account of the manner in which the rent was paid by them to the plaintiff from time to time after adjusting the advance amount which was earlier taken by the plaintiff by executing a Promissory Note. It is the pleaded case of the defendants that in the month of December, 1984, the defendant no.2 and his father enhanced the rent to Rs. 400/- per month on being requested by the plaintiff and thereafter, continued to pay the rent without any default until the month of August, 1998. However, when the defendants offered the rent for the month of September, 1998 to the plaintiff, he had refused to accept the same, as a result of which the rent for the month of September, 1998 was sent by Money Order No. 239 dated 07/10/1998. When the same was also refused by the plaintiff, the defendants had no other option but to deposit the rent before the Court by filing Misc. N.J. cases with effect from the month of September, 1998. Thereafter, the rents for the months of October, 1998 was also tendered to the plaintiff but on being refused, the same was deposited before the Court and in this manner, the rent up to the month of March, 2006 have been deposited in the court by filing N.J. cases. The defendants have also denied the plea taken by the plaintiffs as regards his bonafide requirement of the tenanted premises.

5. Based on the pleadings of the parties