A tenant's failure to tender rent directly to the landlord before depositing it into court violates Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, rendering the tenant a defaulter and liable for eviction regardless of the bona-fide requirement dispute.

ORDER

2. In this petition, under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioners have challenged the Judgment and Decree, dated 11.09.2019, passed in Title Appeal No. 57/2015, by the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati; and the Judgment and Decree, dated 11.08.2015, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 4, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati.

3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned Judgment and Decree, dated 11.09.2019, the learned Civil Judge No. 1, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati (hereinafter, learned Appellate Court); has dismissed the appeal preferred by the petitioners herein and thereby, affirmed the Judgment and Decree, dated 11.08.2015, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 4, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati, in Title Suit No. 463/2012.

4. It is also to be noted here that vide impugned Judgment and Decree, dated 11.08.2015, the learned Munsiff No. 4, Kamrup (Metro), Guwahati (hereinafter, learned Trial Court); has decreed the suit filed by the petitioners herein and held that the petitioners herein/defendants, are liable to vacate the tenanted premises.

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

“The respondent herein, as plaintiff, had instituted a title suit, being T.S. No. 463/2012, for ejectment of the petitioners from the tenanted premises which was given to them on rent. The petitioners herein were running a bakery shop, in the tenanted premises which is an Assam type house and were living in another Assam type house in the same campus and were paying monthly rent @ Rs. 700/-.

The respondent had proposed to develop the land and obtain NOC from the GMC and when the respondent requested the petitioners herein to vacate the tenanted premises, then they refused to vacate the same; and from the month of July, 2012, the petitioners herein, had stopped paying the house rent and from then onwards, they became defaulter also.

And the son of the respondent has been doing business of tent house in a rented premises and as such the tenanted premises under occupation of the petitioners, are bona-fide required by the respondent and as the petitioners herein have failed to vacate the tenanted premises.

Then the respondent herein had instituted a title suit for ejectment of the petitioner, being Title Suit No. 463/2012, and the petitioners herein, as defendants, had filed their written statement, denying that they are defaulters and also challenged the bona-fide requirement of the tenanted premises upon the said pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court has framed the following issues-

(i) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit?

(ii) Whether the suit is maintainable?

(iii) Whether the suit is properly valued?

(iv) Whether the defendant has been a defaulter in payment of rent since July, 2012?

(v) Whether the suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties?

(vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief/reliefs as prayed for?

Thereafter, taking the evidences of both the parties and also, hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for both the parties, the learned Trial Court had, though, decided all the issues, right from Issue No. I to VI, in affirmative in favour of the plaintiff/respondent herein; and thereafter, decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff/respondent herein, by holding that the defendants are liable to vacate the tenanted premises.”

6 Then being aggrieved, the petitioners herein has preferred the present petition on the followin