JUDGMENT :

Prasanta Kumar Deka, J.

Heard Mr. TJ Mahanta, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. S K Singh, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. The judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 21/2013 by the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat affirming the judgment and decree passed in T.S. No. 01/2011 by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Jorhat thereby decreeing the suit in favour of the plaintiff/ respondent for ejectment of the defendant/ petitioner from the tenanted premises described in the schedule of the plaint is put under challenge in this Revision Petition. The plaintiff/ respondent in his plaint pleaded that he is the absolute owner of the suit land and premises mentioned in the schedule of the plaint. The defendant/ petitioner is the tenant in respect of the tenanted premises bearing holding No. 218 (A) in Jorhat town and the monthly rent was fixed at Rs. 5,000/- and the mode of payment was Rs. 3,000/- by cheque and Rs. 2,000/- in cash. The plaintiff/ respondent is a native from the State of Bihar who shifted to Jorhat and asked the defendant/ petitioner to vacate the tenanted premises on the ground that the said tenanted premises along with land were gifted to him by one Sri Awodh Bihari Singh by way of a registered gift deed. On the request of the defendant/ petitioner the period of tenancy was extended till March 2010 and thereafter the defendant/ petitioner did not pay the total rent of Rs. 5,000/- but sent Rs. 3,000/- by way of money order in the name of the elder brother of the plaintiff/ respondent which was refused to accept. On such refusal the defendant/ petitioner started to deposit the rent in the court but it is the pleading that before depositing the rent in the court the rent was not tendered to the plaintiff/ respondent or to his elder brother. Notice was issued dated 25.09.2010 requesting the defendant/ petitioner to pay rent from September, 2010 by way of cheque but the same was not complied rather rent was paid in the court at the rate of Rs. 3,000/. On the said account of defaulter and in addition it was pleaded that the tenanted premises was required by plaintiff/ respondent for his own use, the suit for ejectment of the defendant petitioner was filed.

3. The defendant/ petitioner resisted the claim of the plaintiff/ respondent by filing the written statement. It is the defence that the defendant/ petitioner had all along been under occupation of the tenanted premises since the year 1959. Initially the tenanted premises was chali house with bamboo post and walls and later the father of the petitioner constructed permanent house. It is stated that the rent was paid regularly in respect of the tenanted premises and the rent was enhanced from time to time and finally the rent was fixed at Rs. 3,000/- per month at the time of filing the suit. He tendered rent for the month of March, 2010 by way of cheque to the elder brother which was refused to accept and he started to deposit the rent in the court by filing various NJ cases. Before depositing the rent in the court the defendant/ petitioner tendered the rent to the elder brother of the plaintiff/ respondent who refused to accept and he complied the requirements U/s 5 (4) of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to Act). With the said defence coupled with denial of bonafide requirement the defendant/ petitioner sought for dismissal of the suit.

4. On the basis of the said pleadings following issues were framed:

"1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit?

2. Whether the defendant is a defaulter in respect of payment of rent?

3. Whether the suit premises is bona fide required by the plaintiff?

4. Whether the defendant raised permanent construction over the suit land?

5. What other reliefs the parties are entitled to?

5. The plaintiff/ respondent in support of his case adduced evidence of three witnesses and exhibited nine documents and on the other hand the defendant/ peti