CRP 247/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY The defendants in TS 53/1994 by the present petition filed u/s 115 of t he CPC is praying for revising the judgment and decree dated 2.7.2008 passed by learned Civil Judge at Dhubri in Title Appeal No.66/2006 affirming the judgment and decree dated 13.9.2006 passed by learned Munsiff No.1 at Dhubri in the said suit. The predecessor-in-interest of the present opposite parties instituted t he TS 53/1994 against the present petitioners in the Court of learned Munsiff N o.1 at Dhubri for ejectment of the present petitioners from Holding No.31 descri bed in the Schedule to the plaint, contending inter alia that the present petiti oners who are the monthly tenants in respect of the suit premises have defaulted in making the payment of the monthly rent since Kartik 1397 BS till the date of filing of the suit and also on the ground of bonafide requirement. The suit has been contested by the present petitioners by filing written statement contendin g inter alia that the plaintiffs cannot bring the suit for not being the landlor d in respect of the suit house and, at the same time, contending that they canno t be termed as defaulters as, on being refused by the plaintiffs to accept the m onthly rent from October, 1990 to December, 1990, the same was deposited in Cour t vide NJ Case No.43/1991, as required u/s 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Co ntrol Act, 1972. It has been averred in the said written statement that they in fact instituted TS No.29/91 against the threatened action of eviction by the pla intiffs, which was, however, dismissed on 4.7.92. Though in the plaint filed by the plaintiffs, an averment has been made that the defendants are defaulters for not making payment of the monthly rent due and payable since Kartik 1397 BS Yea r till the date of filing of the suit, the defendants in the written statement, except making the statement that the rent for the months of October, 1990 to Dec ember, 1990 has been paid in Court, have not stated anything relating to making payment to the landlord for the remaining period or depositing the same in Court as required u/s 5(4) of the aforesaid Act, on being refused by the plaintiffs t o accept the same. The defendants in the written statement have also not controv erted the statement of the plaintiffs in the plaint that the suit is required fo r their bonafide use and occupation. The learned court below, upon appreciation of the evidences on record, v ide judgment and decree dated 13.9.2006 decreed the suit of the plaintiffs by ho lding that the plaintiffs are the landlord within the meaning of the provisions of the aforesaid Act and that the defendants are defaulters in respect of the su it premises. The suit was also decreed by the learned court below on the ground of bonafide requirement. Being aggrieved, the present petitioners preferred Titl e Appeal No.66/ 2006 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge, which has also bee n decreed. Hence, the present petition. I have heard Mr S. Nath, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr KP Sarma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that as the plaintiffs are not the owners of the suit premises, they cannot be termed as la ndlord within the meaning of the aforesaid Act and hence, they cannot bring a s uit for ejectment of the defendants from the suit premises, on either of the gro unds, i.e. bonafide requirement and defaulter. It has further been contended tha t the petitioners cannot be termed as defaulter within the meaning of the said A ct as they have deposited the rent in Court on being refused by the plaintiffs t o accept the same. Relating to the bonafide requirement, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that since the plaintiffs have other ho uses which have been let out to other persons, it cannot be said that the plaint iffs require the suit premises for their own use and occupation, there being no case instituted for ejectment against the tenants in respect of other houses. Mr Sarma, learned senior counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, has submitted that the defendants, according to their own admission in the written statement, have accepted the plaintiffs as landlord as, according to th e defendants themselves, they have deposited the rent in Court for the months fr om October, 1990 to December, 1990 in the names of one of the plaintiffs. Theref ore, the defendants now cannot turn around and contend that the plaintiffs are n ot the landlord in respect of the suit premises. It has been further been submit ted that the plaintiffs in the plaint have made a categorical statement that the defendants are defaulters since Kartik 1397 BS Year till the date of filing of the suit. The defendants having only pleaded that the rent due and payable in th e months from October, 1990 to December, 1990 has been deposited in Court and ha ving not stated in the written statement that they have paid the rent for the re maining period or deposited in Court as required under the aforesaid Act, the le arned Courts below have rightly recorded the finding that the defendants are def aulter. Relating to the bonafide requirement, it has been submitted that the def endants in the written statement have not denied the averment that the suit prem ises is bonafide required for their own use and occupation. It appears from the written statement filed by the defendants as noticed above, that though the plaintiffs have claimed that defendants are defaulters s ince Kartik 1397 BS Year, the defendants have claimed that they have deposited t he rents in Court for the months from October, 1990 to December, 1990 and that t oo in the year 1991 by filing NJ Case No.43/1991 at a time. The defendants have not stated in the written statement that rents for the remaining period as claim ed by the plaintiffs in the plaint have been deposited in Court as required u/s 5(4) of the aforesaid Act. In any case, the rents admittedly having been payable in each month, the defendants on their own admission are defaulters as they hav e deposited the rents for the aforesaid 3(three) months in the year 1991 and tha t too, at a time. The defendants have also failed to prove that before making su ch deposit, the rent was offered to the plaintiffs, who have refused to accept t he same, which is the condition precedent for making the valid deposit within th e meaning of Section 5(4) of the Act. According to the defendants, themselves th ey have deposited the rent for October, 1990 to December, 1990 in Court in the n ame of one of the plaintiffs as landlord. That being the position, they cannot c ontend that plaintiffs are not landlord. In view of the above, in my considered opinion, the learned courts below have rightly decided the issue relating to the defaulter in favour of the plain tiffs. Relating to the bonafide requirement, as noticed above, the plaintiffs h ave claimed that the suit house being suitable required for their own use and oc cupation. The defendants in the written statement have not controverted such pos itive claim of the plaintiffs and in fact had remained silent in this regard. Th at apart, the plaintiffs by adducing the evidence could prove that the house in question is required by them for their own use and occupation. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the plaintiffs have other houses a nd, therefore, it cannot be said that the house in question is bonafide required by the plaintiffs for their own use and occupation, cannot be accepted in view of the fact that it is the plaintiffs who are the best judge which house is suit able for them. That apart, such a plea taken by the petitioners have not been pr oved before the learned court below. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I am of the view that the judgment s and decrees passed by the learned courts below cannot be revised in exercise o f the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC and as such, the Revision Petiti on is dismissed. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners prays for allowing th em 6(six) months time to vacate the suit premises, to which Mr KP Sarma, learned senior counsel for the opposite parties have no objection. The prayer is allowed, effective from 1.9.2008 with the following condit ions: 1. That the petitioners shall, within 15 days from today, file an undertaki ng before the learned trial Court that they shall, on or before 1.3.2009, hand o ver the vacant possession of the suit premises to the plaintiffs; 2. That the petitioners shall not induct any other person to the suit premi ses in any capacity; and 3. That the petitioners shall pay Rs.300/- per month from 1.9.2008 till 28. 2.2009, i.e. for the aforesaid six months, payable on the last day of each month . This payment shall, however, not create a fresh tenancy between the parties. 4. That the petitioners shall make the payment to Smti. Bharati Saha(Opposi te Party No.1), who will issue written receipt thereof. It has, however, made clear that in the event of violation of any of the aforesaid conditions, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to put the decree into execution, even before 1.3.2009. The Revision Petition accordingly stands dismissed. No costs.