Suman Shyam, J.

Heard Mr. D. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. B. Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners. I have also heard Mr. S.K Medhi, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Das, learned counsel representing the respondents.

2. This Revision Petition is directed against the concurrent judgment and decree dated 04.06.2009 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup at Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 35/2008 affirming the judgment and decree dated 16.06.2008 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Guwahati in Title Suit No. 356/2006(new)/Title Suit No. 139/2000(old) decreeing the suit filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for ejectment of the revision petitioners from the tenanted premises and for recovery of arrear rent.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, is that the predecessor-in-interest of the revision petitioners, viz., Late Gopal Baruah had originally entered as a tenant under the plaintiffs in respect of the tenanted premises described in the schedule to the plaint which includes the entire first floor area measuring 1486 Sq. ft. and another room measuring 10 ft. × 10 ft. situated at the ground floor, in the south eastern corner of the RCC building covered by Holding No. 80 of Ward No. 31 (new) of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation situated at Panbazar, Guwahati, on condition of paying monthly rent as per English calendar. Initially the rent payable for the tenanted premises was fixed at Rs. 3000/- per month. However, with effect from the month of January, 1997 the rent was revised to Rs. 4500/- per month as per the terms of the compromise decree passed in Title Suit No. 142/1988 by and between the same parties. As per the agreed terms, the rent would become due on the first day of each month and the same used to be collected by the plaintiff No. 7 i.e Sri. Jagadish Prashad Sarma on behalf of the plaintiffs, who claimed to be the joint owners of the property.

4. It is the case of the plaintiffs, as projected in the plaint, that there was an understanding between the parties that the rent would be revised on the expiry of every three years and since the existing rent of Rs. 4500/- took effect from the month of January, 1997, hence, according to the plaintiffs, the monthly rent was due for further revision with effect from the month of January, 2000, i.e. on the expiry of three years. But when the defendants came to offer the rent for the month of December, 1997, the plaintiffs told them that the rent cannot be less than Rs. 8000/- with effect from the month of January, 2000. At that the defendants refused to pay the amount and later on deposited the rent for the months of January, February and March, 2000 in the Court on 01.03.2000 by filing one Misc. N.J Case No. 83/2000.

5. It is also the case of the plaintiffs that the plaintiff No. 3, who is a member of the joint family, is an unemployed person and was desirous of starting a Fast Food center and a PCO in the room measuring 10 ft. × 10 ft. located in the ground floor of the RCC building. The plaintiffs have also pleaded in para 12 of the plaint that a music school, in the name of “Brajabala Sangeet Vidyalaya”, was planned to be started in the first floor portion of the tenanted premises which was occupied by the defendants and hence there was a bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises for the own use of the plaintiffs and their family members. On the basis of such averments the plaintiffs had instituted the aforesaid Title Suit, inter alia, praying for a decree of ejectment of the defendants and for recovery of arrear rent of an amount of Rs. 22,500/- on the ground that the defendants had become defaulter and the suit property was required bonafide for the use of the landlords/plaintiffs. After the death of the original tenant i.e. Gopal Baruah, his wife and children were substituted in the Title Suit as defendant Nos. 1 to 4.

6. The defendants had filed a joint Written Statement in the Suit, inter alia, challenging