Heard Sri G.P. Bhowmick, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners assisted by Smt. S. Roy, Advocate and Sri Anirban Das, learned Counsel for the respondents.

2. By filing this revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, the petitioners has challenged the first appellate judgment and decree dated 22.01.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati, in Title Appeal No. 96/2013, thereby upholding the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2013 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati in Title Suit No.2/2012, by which the suit of the respondents herein for recovery of arrear rent and ejection of the petitioners herein from the suit premises was allowed.

3. Briefly stated, the case of the parties is that the respondents herein are the landlord of the petitioners in respect of a shop room No. A-6 in the ground floor of the building described in Schedule-A of the plaint. The shop room, which is hereinafter referred to as the suit premises is morefully described in Schedule-B of the plaint. The tenancy for 3 years w.e.f. 01.10.2004 was created by virtue of an agreement dated 01.02.2007. As per the said agreement, the petitioners was required to pay a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- per English calendar month within tenth day of the succeeding month, in addition to which the petitioners was also required to pay charges for consumption of electricity in the suit premises. The said agreement contained provisions for renewal of term by a fresh agreement and it also provided for increase of rent by 15% after every three years. At the time of taking the suit premises on rent, the petitioners had paid an advance rent of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only), which was to be adjusted against at the rate of Rs.200/- per month.

4. The term of the agreement expired on 30.09.2007 and the petitioners continued to occupy the suit premises and the tenancy continued upto December, 2009, which the respondents claimed as unauthorized. However, the petitioners paid rent w.e.f. 01.10.2007 at the rate of Rs.1,150/- per month i.e. by increasing the rent by 15%. The respondents claimed that the petitioners had stopped paying rent on and from the month of January, 2010 and, as such, advocate’s notice dated 28.06.2011 was issued by the respondents to the petitioners demanding arrear rent and informing about the requirement of the suit premises for their own use. As the petitioners did not vacate the suit premises and did not pay the arrear rent, the respondents had filed the said suit. By Advocate’s reply dated 15.07.2011, the petitioners had stated that the rent from January, 2010 was adjusted against advance rent. The respondents claimed monthly rent @ Rs.1,150/- per month from 01.01.2010 to 30.09.2010 and at the rate of Rs.1,323/- from 01.10.2010 to 30.11.2011.

5. The petitioners contested the suit by filing written statement and took a plea that the respondents had proposed full adjustment of rent from the advance rent and, as such, monthly rent on and from January, 2010 to March, 2011 was adjusted towards monthly rent. After rent for the month of April, 2011 became due, the petitioners offered monthly rent to the respondents, but on refusal, the same was deposited in Court under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972.

6. In course of trial, the below mentioned issues were framed by the learned trial court and in course of trial, the respondents/ plaintiffs examined 3 witnesses and the petitioners/defendants examined two witnesses. The issues framed in the suit are:-

1. Whether the suit is maintainable?

2. Whether the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties?

3. Whether the defendant is a defaulter in the payment of rent?

4. Whether the plaintiff requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation?

5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs as pr