1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. R. Jain, the learned Counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr. C. Baruah, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. L. Yangzom, the learned Counsel for the respondent.

2. By this revision under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, the petitioners have assailed the first appellate judgment and decree dated 28.03.2012 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dibrugarh in Title Appeal No. 15/2009, by which the judgment and decree dated 15.05.2009, passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Dibrugarh in Title Suit No. 152/2006 was set aside and reversed.

3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the said suit. It was stated that they were the landlords of the respondent in respect of the suit premises comprising of 429 square feet in the first floor of the two storied RCC building at Dibrugarh as described in the Schedule of the plaint and that it was agreed that the respondent would pay monthly rent of Rs.2,150/- for the said tenanted premises. It was projected that the respondent had been irregular in paying monthly rent to the petitioners and from November, 2005 he had stopped paying any rent. It was claimed that the respondent had been allowed to run a "Beer Bar" from the tenanted premises. However, it was stated that without their consent, the respondent had started to run a "Hot Bar" from the suit premises. Similarly, it was stated that the respondent had also installed air-conditioner without their consent, for the petitioners had also complained before ASEB. Accordingly, on 19.12.2005 and 07.09.2006, they served Advocates notice to vacate the suit premises and to pay the arrear monthly rents, which was not complied. Moreover, claiming bona fide requirement for the suit premises for the business of petitioner No.5, the suit was filed for ejection of the respondent, for realizing arrear rent and other reliefs.

4. The respondent- defendant contested the suit by filing his written statement. It was stated therein that the suit was filed due to business rivalry between him and petitioner No.3, who was the owner of Gaurab Hotel. The respondent denied that all the petitioners were his landlord, claiming that his landlord was Bhupendra Singh @ Raju Singh (petitioner No.2), who accepted monthly rent from him. He claimed to have come into possession of the suit premises since 31.03.1991 as a tenant under Late Gurbachan Singh, the father of the petitioners, paying monthly rent of Rs.2,150/- per month, as and when asked to pay, sometime in advance for 2-3 months. It was stated that although all the petitioners had inherited the property, but the petitioner No.2 was his landlord, for which there was no fresh agreement. He claimed that although the petitioner No.2 used to collect rent from him, but he discontinued issuing any house rent receipt as was done by his late father. It was stated that there was no specific date for payment of monthly rent and that the rent was paid within each month and sometimes the petitioner No.2 asked him to pay rent for 2-3 months in advance like his father, which was paid and it was further stated pleaded that as monthly rent was irregularly demanded, consequently, monthly rent was irregularly paid, not till October, 2005 but till October, 2006. It was stated that in the month of September, 2005 the petitioner No.2 asked him to pay rent at the rate of Rs.70/- per day as he needed money for his daily use, which was paid since 01.10.2005 to October, 2006 as such, the respondent claimed that he was not a defaulter. It was also stated that Beer Bar was converted to Hot Bar on receiving NOC from the petitioner No.2, who became his regular daily customer. It was also claimed that the petitioner No.2 offered to let him an attached room at monthly rent of Rs.900/- per month, for which he paid an advance of Rs.15,000/-, but did not hand him the said small room. It was stated that he had later on come to know tha