The court affirmed that a tenant's failure to comply with statutory rent payment timelines constitutes default, justifying eviction. Landlord's bona fide need for premises for business is a valid ground for eviction.

JUDGMENT :

Robin Phukan, J.

Heard Mr. B.J. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents on call, in spite of due service of notice upon them, for which vide order dated 30.01.2026, it has been decided to proceed with this matter against the respondents ex-parte. Accordingly, Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioners is heard.

2. This revision petition, under Section 115 of the CPC, is directed against the judgment dated 29.06.2024, and the decree dated 11.07.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sivasagar, in Title Appeal No. 13/2023.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment, dated 29.06.2024, and decree dated 11.07.2024, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sivasagar (‘appellate Court’, for short) had reversed the judgment dated 14.07.2023 and decree dated 19.07.2023, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Sivasagar (‘trial Court’, for short), in Title Suit No. 26/2016. It is also to be noted here that vide judgment dated 14.07.2023 and decree dated 19.07.2023, the learned trial Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/petitioners.

4. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under:

“The petitioners as plaintiffs instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 26/2016, against the original defendant, Late Khirud Ch. Saikia, for a decree of eviction from the suit property on the ground of defaulter as well as bona fide requirement and recovery of arrear rent. The case of the petitioners/plaintiffs was that the original defendant, as a tenant of plaintiff No. 1, took and occupied one part of the suit house, which was later on arranged to two rooms for furniture and iron fabrication shops, as a monthly tenant, situated at Ward No. 9 of Sivasagar Town, on a monthly rent of Rs. 600/- only. The other part was let out to one Keshab Keot. The defendant had been running a furniture shop initially by taking the house on rent of Rs. 400/- per month from the elder brother of the plaintiff No. 1, namely, Late Sarat Baruah and after the death of Sarat Baruah, the defendant continued the tenancy with the plaintiff No. 1 and the tenancy continued with the defendant till November, 2004. The defendant became a defaulter and did not pay rent for the month of November, 2004 and was still continuing to be a defaulter. Later on, the defendant paid rent in the Court for the month of December, 2004 and January 2005 in N.J Case No. 58/2005, on 23.02.2005, without tendering monthly rent to the plaintiff No. 1 and thereafter, did not pay any rent at all. The defendant was asked to vacate the tenanted premises orally several times, and that the plaintiff No. 1 is economically weak and had been suffering from prolong illness, but somehow he filed a suit for eviction of the other tenant, namely, Keshab Keot being T.S. No 14/2004, which was decreed in the plaintiff's favour.

The defendant was supposed to be evicted during that period, but the defendant agreed to vacate whenever asked for the purpose of constructing a RCC building, which was to be undertaken after eviction of Keshab Keot, but later on, he did not keep his word. The plaintiff No. 2 had been managing the affairs of the tenancy of the rented houses of the plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff No. 1 also executed a power of attorney a