The judgment emphasized the mandatory nature of the provisions of the Rent Control Act and the requirement for the tenant to offer rent to the landlord before depositing it in Court.

JUDGMENT

Kalyan Rai Surana, J. - Heard Mr. D. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. I. Hussain, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This revision under section 115 CPC is directed against the first appellate judgment and decree dated 29.05.2019, passed by the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur in Title Appeal No. 9/2019, thereby dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Munsiff No.2, Sonitpur, Tezpur in T.S. No. 12/2012. The respondent is the landlady of the petitioner and she had instituted the suit for ejectment of the petitioner and for realization of arrear rent.

3. The case of the respondent- plaintiff in the suit was that the appellant was a monthly tenant under Tarek Akhtar Ansari, her brother, in respect of a room described in the schedule of the plaint from where he is carrying out business under the name and style of M/s. Super Tyres Services, for which the petitioner was required to pay monthly rent at the rate of Rs.1,400/- per month, payable on 7th day of each and every English calendar month. By virtue of family arrangement dated 14.07.2010, amongst the heirs of Late Ghulam Samdani Ansari, the suit room fell in the share of the respondent. It was projected that the petitioner and her brother, i.e. Tarek Akhtar Ansari verbally informed the petitioner of such fact and the petitioner was requested to attorn his tenancy under the respondent and to pay monthly rent to the respondent from the month of July, 2010 and that such verbal request was followed by a written notice dated 12.08.2010 sent by registered post. The erstwhile landlord not only informed the petitioner in writing that he was ready and willing to refund the security amount of Rs.14,000/-, but 2 (two) bank drafts for a total sum of Rs.14,000/- was also forwarded to the petitioner along with letter dated 15.10.2011. However, the petitioner did not offer monthly rent to the respondent. It was projected that on receipt of notice in Misc. Case No. 483/2011 from the Court of Munsiff No.1, Sonitpur, Tezpur, the respondent came to know that a sum of Rs.23,800/- was deposited by the petitioner towards monthly rent for the months of July, 2010 to November, 2011 at the rate of Rs.1,400/- per month in the name of the respondent. Accordingly, the suit was filed by the respondent.

4. The case of the petitioner in his written statement was that the former landlord refused to receive rent from the petitioner for the months of July, 2010, and only through letter dated 12.08.2010, the petitioner was informed about the family arrangement and to contact the respondent for a fresh tenancy. However, the respondent had agreed to accept monthly rent from the petitioner at a new rate for the months of July and August, 2010. It was stated that at no point of time the respondent ever showed him the deed of family settlement and did not ask for monthly rent for the month of July and August, 2010. It was projected that no one came to claim monthly rent from the petitioner and it was also projected that the former landlord took more than a year to refund the security deposit and, as such, by claiming that the petitioner was not a willful defaulter, prayed for dismissing the suit on ground of acquiescence, estoppel and waiver, and for want of cause of action. It was stated that the petitioner was shocked to receive advocate's notice dated 18.11.2010, and it was claimed that the advocate's notice was sent after the petitioner had refused to pay exorbitant rent demanded by the respondent. It was stated that the respondent could not claim rent for the months of July, 2010 to November, 2011 as the monthly rent was deposited in favour of the respondent in Court and it was projected that the petitioner was not liable to be held as a defaulter and that he was not liable to be evicted.

5. The following issues were framed for trial, viz., (I) whether there is any cause of action for the suit? (II) Whether the defendant