CRP 57/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Phukan, le arned counsel for the respondent. This revision petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 30th Nov ember, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Golaghat in Title Appeal No.7/200 9 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner challenging the judgment and decree dated 12th August, 2009 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Golaghat in Title Suit No.1/2007, whereby and whereunder the suit of the present respondent has been decreed for ejectment of the present petitioner from the suit premises on the ground of defaulter as well as bonafide requirement. The aforesaid suit was instituted by the present respondent for ejectment of the present petitioner from the suit premises contending inter-alia that though as per the agreement between the parties, the present petitioner is required to pay the monthly rent of Rs.1500/- within 15 (fifteen) days of the succeeding month of the English calendar, the rent due and payable from the month of September, 2 005 onwards have not been paid by the petitioner/defendant. It is also the plea ded case of the respondent in the plaint that the suit premise is required for h is own use and occupation. The suit was contested by the present petitioner by filing written statement and contending inter-alia that there was an agreement with the present respondent f or sale of the suit property in favour of the present petitioner and though the present petitioner/defendant made the amount ready for payment, the same, howeve r, was not accepted. It is also the pleaded case of the defendant/petitioner th at because of the refusal to accept the rent by the plaintiff, he sent the rent due in every month to the respondent/plaintiff but having not accepted the said rent, he has deposited such rent in Court. The parties on the basis of their respective pleadings adduced evidences and the learned trial Court, upon consideration of the entire evidences on record, dete rmined the issues relating to defaulter and bonafide requirement in favour of th e plaintiff/respondent by holding that the defendant has failed to make payment of monthly rent to the plaintiff in terms of the agreement between the parties a nd also did not deposit the same in Court within a fortnight from the date of re fusal to accept such rent. Though the present petitioner preferred the aforesai d appeal before the learned Appellate Court, the same has also been dismissed by affirming the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below and also th e finding recorded against the issues relating to defaulter and bonafide require ment. It appears from the impugned judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below that the petitioner, though under Sub-Section (4) of Section 5 of the Assa m Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (in short, the Act ) was required to pay t he monthly rent for each English calendar month within 15 (fifteen) days of the succeeding month, the same was not tendered/paid to the plaintiff. It also appe ars that the defendant by filing NJ Case No.8/2007 has deposited the rent from t he month of December, 2005 to January, 2007 at a time without being tendered to the plaintiff first. Since the agreement between the parties was for payment of monthly rent within 15 (fifteen) days of the next succeeding month, the defenda nt was required to pay the said rent to the plaintiff or to tender the same and in the event of refusal to accept such rent was required to deposit such amount in Court as required under Sub-Section (4) of Section 5 of the Act. The defenda nt/petitioner having failed to do so, the learned Courts below have rightly reco rded the finding that he is a defaulter. That apart, both the learned Courts below have found that the suit premise is re quired by the plaintiff for his own use and occupation. Such finding of fact, un less perversity is demonstrated, cannot be disturbed in exercise of the revision al power under Section 115 of the CPC. No perversity in recording such finding could be demonstrated by the petitioner. In view of the above, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and d ecree dated 30th November, 2010 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Golaghat in T itle Appeal No.7/2009 affirming the judgment and decree dated 12th August, 2009 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Golaghat in Title Suit No.1/2007, requiring interference in exercise of the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. At this stage, Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner may be allowed 1 (one) year time to vacate the suit premises, as he i s constructing his own use, which is expected to be completed within the aforesa id period of time. Mr. Phukan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, o n the other hand, has submitted that the respondent has no objection if the reas onable period of time is granted, provided the petitioner gives an undertaking t hat on expiry of such time, he would hand over the vacant possession of the suit premise to the respondent and he would pay Rs.1500/- per month, for the said pe riod, without creating a new tenancy. Having regard to the aforesaid submission, the petitioner is allowed to occupy t he said suit premise for a period of 8 (eight) months from 1st April, 2011 subje ct to filing an undertaking by him in the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1, Gol aghat, within 15 (fifteen) days from today, that he on 30th November, 2011 shall hand over the vacant possession of the suit premises to the respondent. The pe titioner shall also deposit Rs.1500/- in the first week of every month, commenci ng from the month of April, 2011, in the Court of the learned Munsiff No.1, Gola ghat, which shall be released to the respondent. It would, however, not create any new tenancy between the parties. It is also open to the respondent to withd raw the amount already deposited by the petitioner. The revision petition is dismissed. No costs.