For a tenant to claim valid deposit of rent under Section 5(4) Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, he must prove the specific date of offer and refusal, not just a vague statement of offering in the first week of the month.

ORDER

05.05.2026 Heard Mr. G. Khandelia, learned counsel for the petitioner and also heard Mr. R.

Bora, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. In this petition, under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Charaideo, Sonari, in Title Appeal No.10/2021. Notably, vide impugned judgment and decree dated 13.02.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Charaideo, Sonari (hereinafter referred to as the learned Appellate Court), has affirmed the judgment and decree dated 20.05.2019, passed by the learned Munsiff, Charaideo, Sonari, in Title Suit No.7/2017. It is also to be noted here that vide judgment and decree, dated 20.05.2019, the learned Munsiff, Charaideo, Sonari (hereinafter referred to as the learned Trial Court), in Title Suit No.7/2017 has decreed the suit of the plaintiff, the respondent herein, on contest with cost.

3. In this petition the status of the parties, as indicated in the title suit, before the learned Trial Court, is adopted to avoid confusion and for the sake of convenience.

4. The background facts leading to filing of this revision petition are briefly stated as under:-

“The respondent herein, as plaintiff, had instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No.7/2017 before the Court of learned Munsiff, Charaideo against the present petitioner as defendant for a decree of arrear rent, ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises on the ground of defaulter in payment of rent and also on the ground of bona-fide requirement of the suit premises.

The plaintiff is the owner of a shop room, which is a part of RCC building, consisting of 4 rooms, as described in the Schedule ‘A’ of the plaint. The father of the plaintiff, namely, Jay Narayan Sahu (since deceased) was the owner of the said 4 rooms, standing on a plot of land bearing P.P. No.133, Dag No.288, situated at Moran Town, and he let out one of the shop rooms to the defendant rd during his lifetime, at the rate of Rs.800/- per month, payable within 3 day of the succeeding month as per English Calendar. The father of the plaintiff suffered demise on 11.02.2005, leaving behind the plaintiff and two brothers as his legal heirs. And after the death of the plaintiff’s father, the plaintiff got the Schedule ‘A’ shop room as his share in the father’s property, by way of succession. The plaintiff then informed the defendant regarding the ownership of the scheduled shop room and the defendant has accepted the plaintiff as his landlord and became the tenant of the plaintiff. Thereafter, from July, 2010 the initial rent of Rs.800/- per month was enhanced to Rs.2,000/- per month. And since January, 2014, the monthly rent was