Originally the present petitioners filed the Second appeal which was numbered as S. A. No. 128 of 1977 and subsequently it was converted to present Civil Revision No. 87 of 1980. 2. Petitioner herein was a tenant in respect of two houses at a monthly rent of Rs. 60/- and Rs. 123/- per month. The tenancy was according to English calendar month. Suit for eviction was filed by the landlord on the ground of defaulter of rent and both the lower courts below decreed the suit for ejectment of the present petitioner on the ground of defaulter. It was pleaded by the defen­dants in their written statement that there was no agreement that rent was payable monthly and the practice between the parties was to receive the rent at a time for several months together. It has also been pleaded in the written statement that employees of the defendants tendered rent, but it was refused. Thereafter defendants sent the dues by money order and it was also refused Thereafter rent from July, 1969 to June, 1970 was deposited in the Court as per provisions of the rent law. From record I find that after institution of this suit the defendants petitioner deposited 3 years rent together in 1973 after obtaining orders from the Court. 3. First point which needs consideration is whether by exercising revisional jurisdiction, this Court can go into the question of defaulter, In this connection Mr, Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance in Srimati Pratima Prabhsr Kalita vs. Shri Arun Kumar Ghose Dastidar, (1985) 1 GLR (NOC) 1. In that case it was held by a Single Judge of this Court that the question whether tenant is a defaulter or not is the vital question connected with jurisdiction. High Court can examine the question by exercising powers under Section 115 C. P. C. In view of the legal position which I respectfully agree, this court can go into the question of defaulter. 4. Clause (e) of the proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 runs as follows : "(e) where the tenant has not paid the rent lawfully due from him in respect of the house within a fortnight of its falling due' emphasis supplied. The only contention of Mr. 4. Clause (e) of the proviso of sub-section (1) of Section 5 of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 runs as follows : "(e) where the tenant has not paid the rent lawfully due from him in respect of the house within a fortnight of its falling due' emphasis supplied. The only contention of Mr. Bhattacharjee is that though the tenancy was a monthly tenancy, the courts below has not decided the date of the rent falling due in the case in hand in view of the fact that the tenant specifically pleaded in the written statement that there was no agreement that the rent shall be paid monthly and the practice between the parties was to pay rent at a time for several months together. On the other hand Mr. J. K. Baruah, learned counsel for the opp. party has urged that even if rent was not payable at the end of the month, there has to be a particular mode for payment of rent say after 2 or 3 months and not the way in which the petitioners paid rent even after 3 years as stated above. 5. In Punjalal vs. Bhagwat prasad, A.I.R 1963 S.C. 120 their Lordsh­ips held in para 21 of the report that the tenancy can be from month to month and the recoverability of the rent may not be from month to month and may, under the contract, be based on any period say, a quarter or half year or a year. This court bad also occasion to consider this matter. In Bhawani Sankar Sharma vs. Smt. Laxmi Devi Garodia & ors. (1984) 2 G.L.R. 182, it was held that where eviction is sought for on the ground that the tenant is defaulter in payment of rent within the meaning of clause (e) of the proviso to sub section (1) of Section 5 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, the basic question to be enquired into is as to what is the date when the rent had fallen due in the particular case. In Harish Ch. Ram Kanai Bhuiya vs. Dr. Naresh Ch. Ghose (1985) I.G.L R 36, it was held that it is the burden of the landlord seeking eviction on the ground of defaulter to inform the Court about the agreement relating to the mode of payment. In Abdul Jolil vs. Girija Sankar Das and ors. In Harish Ch. Ram Kanai Bhuiya vs. Dr. Naresh Ch. Ghose (1985) I.G.L R 36, it was held that it is the burden of the landlord seeking eviction on the ground of defaulter to inform the Court about the agreement relating to the mode of payment. In Abdul Jolil vs. Girija Sankar Das and ors. (1985) 2 G.L.R. 66, documents produced before the Court showing that the landlord had been realising rent for two months at a. time and on that fact it was held that the tenant cannot be held to be defaulter on the ground of non-payment of rent within 15 days • without considering the agreement between the parties relating to the mode of payment of the rent. 6. Situated thus, I hold that even in case of monthly tenancy the mode of payment of rent may be different. For the purpose of clause (e) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 5 there has to be a finding of the Court regarding the date on which the rent has fallen due which is absent in the case in hand. Of course cont­ention of Mr. Baruah needs consideration as there has to be a certain mode for payment of rent and as stated by the Apex Court, it may be quarterly, half yearly, yearly etc. A tenant cannot be allowed to pay rent according to his whims or when able. 7. In the case in hand as there is no clear finding of the courts below regarding date on which rent was due, it would not be appro­priate for revisional Court to go into this question by reappreciation of evidence and decide the matter. Therefore, it is necessary to send back the case to the learned lower appellate Court who shall decide the question of rent falling due and consequently the question of defau­lter. The learned lower appellate Court shall dispose of the appeal on merit after deciding the above points. It is unfortunate that though the dispute is pending since 1970, this Court has to remand the case. 8. In the result, I remand the ease to the learned lower appellate Court to decide the question as indicated above. The learned lower appellate Court shall give top most priority as the matter is pending for long time. 9. I, therefore, allow the petition, set aside the impugned decree and remand the case as directed above. 8. In the result, I remand the ease to the learned lower appellate Court to decide the question as indicated above. The learned lower appellate Court shall give top most priority as the matter is pending for long time. 9. I, therefore, allow the petition, set aside the impugned decree and remand the case as directed above. Parties to bear their own costs.