1. This Revision Petition challenges the judgment and decree dated 22.04.2016 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in Title Appeal No.36/2010. The said Title Appeal arose out of the judgment and decree dated 26.02.2010 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Kamrup(M), Guwahati in Title Suit No. 238/1996 (new) 50/85(old). The mother of the present respondents as the sole plaintiff filed Title Suit No.238/1996 against the present petitioners/defendants for ejectment from the suit premises on the ground of defaulter and bonafide requirement. It is the case of the plaintiff/respondent that the suit premises was taken on rent by the defendants/petitioners on monthly rent @ Rs.1001/- payable by the defendants/petitioners after expiry of every month. The defendants/petitioners paid rent up to the month of June, 1984 but did not pay rent for the subsequent months as such the defendants/petitioners are defaulter. The suit premises is required by the plaintiff/respondent for personal use as she is residing in a rented house. Moreover, the unemployed son of the plaintiff/respondent, Biswanath Jalan wanted to start business in the suit premises. Accordingly, the plaintiff/respondent prayed for ejectment of the defendants/petitioners from the suit premises.

2. The defendant/petitioner No.2 as the partner of defendant/petitioner No.1, contested the suit by filing written statement interalia stating that there is no cause of action, the suit is not maintainable, bad for non joinder of necessary party. It is also pleaded that the tenancy commenced in the year 1960 on the basis of oral agreement and there is no fixed mode for payment of rent between the parties. The plaintiff/respondent and/or her son/agent used to collect rent as per their convenience. The defendants/petitioners paid rent to the plaintiff/respondent up to June, 1984. However, the plaintiff/respondent did not come to collect rent for the month of July, 1984 till 20.08.1984. So the partner of the defendants/petitioners went to offer rent to the plaintiff/respondent but she send back the partner stating that on the next day she would send her son with receipt. On 21.08.1984, the son of the plaintiff/respondent demanded to enhance rent from Rs.1001/- to Rs.1501/- and declined to accept rent. The defendants/petitioners again offered rent to the plaintiff/respondent at her residence on 21.08.1984 but she refused to accept the rent and as such the defendants/petitioners were compelled to deposit rent in the court. The plaintiff/respondent filed this suit with malafide intention to increase the rent. The defendants/petitioners stated that the fair rent should be Rs.500 which is required to be fixed. It was further pleaded that the defendants/petitioners are not defaulter rather depositing rent in the court regularly. The ground of bonafide requirements was disputed being false. Accordingly, the defendants/petitioners prayed for dismissal of the suit. On the basis of the pleadings following issues were framed:

“1. Whether the suit is maintainable?

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

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

4. Whether the defendants are defaulters as alleged by the plaintiff?

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

6. To what other relief or reliefs the parties are entitled?

7. Whether the fair rent of the suit premises should be Rs.500 per month?

8. Whether the defendant is entitled to of excess amount paid towards rent? If so to what extent?”

3. The learned trial court after the trial, decreed the suit vide judgment dated 26.02.2010. The learned trial court while deciding issue No.4 came to the finding as follows:

“DW-1 in his cross-examination admitted that order sheet of Ext-19(67) shows that the NJ Case was dismissed for not taking steps. Order sheet of Ext-19(67) does not disclose that notice was served upon the plaintiff in respect of deposit of rent. Issuance of notic