Heard Mr. Arnab Biswas the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. N. Dutta learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. B. Talukdar learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code has been filed by the petitioner/defendant to challenged the judgment and order dated 08.02.2017 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dhubri in Title Appeal No. 27/2013, thereby upholding the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2013 passed by the Court of Munsiff No. 1, Dhubri in Title Suit No. 74/2006 for eviction of the defendant petitioner and for recovery of arrear rent.

3. The respondent/plaintiff is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The respondent/plaintiff had instituted a suit against the predecessor-in-interest of the present petitioners, Shri Nani Gopal Deb for his eviction on the ground of default as well as on the ground that the suit premises was bona fide required for construction of RCC building for doing business therefrom.

4. The brief case of the parties is that on 01.12.1957, the predecessor in interest of the petitioner was inducted as a tenant in respect of an Assam type house, from where a bakery business was started. Since 1980, the petitioner had been paying monthly rent of Rs.130/- per month for the suit premises. Since the month of December, 1992 the predecessor in interest of the petitioner had failed to pay the monthly rent to the respondent/ plaintiff and, as such, had become defaulter in the eyes of law. It was projected that the suit premises was bona fide required for constructing a RCC building thereon for accommodating their own business for which they had secured permission for construction from the competent authority. Although, the outstanding rent had accumulated to Rs. 36,660/- (Rupees Thirty six thousand six hundred and sixty only) but the suit was filed for recovery of arrear rent from June 2003 to May 2006 only and they had forgone the outstanding rent due from December, 1982 to May 2003. The plaint was filed by the respondent Company through Mrs. Nazrana A. Islam, Director.

5. The petitioner/ defendant contends the suit by filing the written statement and it was projected that after the compromise in the previous suit, fresh arrangement were made by the parties in respect of the tenancy on certain verbal terms and conditions. It was stated that sometimes the respondent used to collect rent monthly and sometimes on a lump-sum on their convenience and, as such, there was no due date for payment of the monthly rent and therefore, the question of refusal to pay the monthly rent never arose and there was no arrear of rent. The petitioner’s case was that since December 1982, although they having been paid their rent upto April, 1986 but the plaintiff had stopped issuing rent receipt despite demands. Hence, after 1986, the petitioner could not take any risk and, as such, the petitioner/defendant deposited the rent in Court under the provision of the Assam Urban Area Rent Control Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as ‘AUARC Act’), with notice to the plaintiff. Hence, no rent is in arrear and the defendant was not a defaulter. Along with the written statements, 46 (forty six) rent deposit Treasury Challans were referred to and filed showing the deposit of rent in Court. The bonafide requirement of the suit premises by the respondent was denied by stating that they had several properties in Dibrugarh and they can carry out their business from any other premises and that the suit premises was their only source of livelihood. Hence, the petitioner/ defendant claimed for the dismissal of the suit.

6. In course of trial, the learned Court of Munsiff No. 1, Diburgarh, on the basis of pleading, framed the following 6 issues in the suit:-

i. Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

ii. Whether the suit is maintainable in law and facts?

iii. Whether the defendant is a defaulter in respect of payment of monthly rent for the suit pre