Heard Mr. S. Barooah along with Mr. D. Agarwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. B. K. Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This Civil Revision Petition under Section 115 of the CPC was filed against the judgment and decree dated 15.03.2016, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Kamrup (Metro), at Guwahati, in Title Appeal No. 80/2014, dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2014, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 463/2010, decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/landlord for ejectment of the defendants from the suit premises, which is a flat measuring 576 Sq. ft. (24 X 24 feet) situated on the third floor of an RCC building and for arrear rent for the period from July, 2003 till the suit premises is vacated @ Rs. 781.00 per month, which is the amount of monthly rent, etc.

3. The suit was filed under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (for short, “the Act”). For better appreciation, Section 5(1) and Section 5(4) of the Act, which are relevant for the purpose of this case, are reproduced herein below:

“5. Bar against passing and execution of decree and orders for ejection. – (1) No order or decree for the recovery of possession of any house shall be made or executed by any Court so long as the tenant pays rent to the full extent allowable under this Act and performs the conditions of the tenancy. Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall apply in a suit or proceedings for eviction of the tenant from the house –

(a) Where the tenant has done anything contrary to the provisions of clause (m), clause (o) or clause (p) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (Central Act 4 of 1882) or to the spirit of the aforesaid clause in areas where the said Act does not apply; or

(b) Where the tenant has been guilty of conduct which is a nuisance or an annoyance to the occupiers of the adjoining or neighbouring houses; or

(c) Where the house is bonafide required by the landlord either for purposes of repairs or rebuilding, or for his own occupation or for the occupation of any person for whose benefit the house is held, or where the landlord can show any other cause which may be deemed satisfactory by the Court; or

(d) Where the tenant sublets the house or any part thereof or otherwise transfers his interest in the house or any part thereof without permission in writing from the landlord; or

(e) Where the tenant has not paid the rent lawfully due from him in respect of the house within a fortnight of its falling due; or

(f) Where the tenant has built, acquired or been allowed a suitable residence.

*** *** ***

*** *** ***

(4) Where the landlord refuses to accept the lawful rent offered by his tenant, the tenant may within a fortnight of its becoming due, deposit in Court the amount of such rent together with process fees for service of notice upon the landlord, and on receiving such deposit, the Court shall cause a notice of the receipt of such deposit to be served on the landlord, and the amount of the deposit may thereafter be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him to the Court in that behalf. A tenant who has made such deposit shall not be treated as a defaulter under clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of this section.”

4. The plaintiff had filed the suit for ejectment of the petitioners under Clauses 5(1) (a), (c), (d), (e) and (f) of the Act. Both the courts below held that the tenants are liable to be evicted on each of the above counts.

5. The trial court records were not received and both Mr. Baruah and Mr. Jain had placed before the court copies of the evidence and exhibits. The court had received only three files, namely, “A”, “C2” and “D” from the learned court below.

6. At the very outset, Mr. Baruah has submitted that he will be assailing the impugned judgment in respect of Issue Nos. 5, 6, 7, 10 and 11. Out of the ab