BIRENDRA NATH SARMA Vs. ARUNAMAYEE BISHAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. C. K. Sarma Baruah, learned senior counsel for the revision petitioner and Mr. H. N. Sarma, learned senior counsel for opposite party.

(2.) THIS revision application is by the defendant-tenant against whom a decree of eviction passed by the learned trial Court under the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 has been affirmed in appeal. The eviction of the defendant-tenant has been ordered by the learned Courts below on the finding that the defendant-tenant is a defaulter in the matter of payment of the monthly rent in respect of the suit premises. It must be noticed at this stage that while the learned trial Court had come to the finding that the rent was payable within 7 days of the succeeding month of the tenancy and that the deposits made by the defendant in Court were not in accordance with the provisions of the Act, the learned lower appellate Court disagreed with the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned trial Court but has upheld the eventual conclusions on its own reasons. The learned appellate Court, on the materials adduced, reached the conclusion that though the deposits made in Court were in accordance with the provisions of the Act and the 7th day of the succeeding month was not the due date for payment of the rent, yet, the defendant had failed to prove payment of rent in Court for the months of January, 1990, February and March, 1996 and February, 1997 by exhibiting the relevant challans and therefore, must be held to be a defaulter and liable to eviction.

(3.) THE arguments advanced by Mr. Sarma Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner are to the effect that the period of four months, as noted above, in respect of which default has been recorded by the learned Court below being subsequent to the date of the filing of the suit and the default, in any, on the part of the defendant to deposit the monthly rent for the months in question ought to have been brought before the Court in a "prudent" and appropriate manner so as to enable the defendant to rebut the allegations and adduce satisfactory proof of payment of rent for the months in question. According to the learned counsel, what happened in the present case is that the learned Court below after recording the findings substantially in favour of the defendant, as noted above, proceeded to hear the oral arguments raised with regard to the aforesaid issue. Thereafter, the learned Court below itself verified the exhibited treasury challans to come to the impugned finding. The procedure adopted, according to the learned counsel, was not fair and what should have been done is that the defendant should have been given a full and adequate opportunity to controvert the allegations made in the course of the oral arguments. The finding of default recorded by the learned appellate Court is sought to be assailed on the aforesaid basis.