This revision under section 115 CPC by the plaintiff is against the judgment dated 15.2.88 passed by Sri P. K. Thakur, Assistant District Judge, Tinsukia in Title Appeal No. 8 of 1986 dismissing the suit by setting-aside the decree dated 31.1.86 which was passed by Sri K. C. Gogoi, Munsiff No. 1 Tinsukia, in Title Suit No. 2 of 1981 for ejectment of defendant, for arrear rent and compensation. 2. The plaintiff is the owner of the suit house at Tinsukia. In this house, the defendant became a tenant under him from 1.8.78 on monthly rent of Rs. 240/- according to English calendar month. The rent was payable in advance within the first week of current month. The defendant was not to make any construction without a consent from the plaintiff. On these terms the tenancy was created from 1.8.78 by an unregistered document. The plaintiff refused to accept the rent for July, 1980 complaining that the defendant not only was irregular in payment but he also violated the agreement by constructing a new house on vacant part of the premises without his consent. Since then, the defendant remained without paying rent till October, 1980. On this allegation, the plaintiff brought a suit for ejectment of the defendant, for arrear rent and compensation. 3. The defendant contested the suit. In written statement, he admitted his being a tenant; but denied that he was d efaulter. His plea is that rent was not payable every month because in practice, the plaintiff used to collect the rent for 2/3 months at a time and as the plaintiff refused to accept the rent for July, 1980 he remitted a sum of Rs. 960/- as rent @ Rs. 240/- per month from July to October, 1980 by a Money Order which the plaintiff refused to receive. He, therefore, deposited the rent in Court for the month of July, 1980 and onwards. He also denied the construction on vacant land of the premises. Thus, he prayed for dismissing the suit. 4. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The learned Munsiff found that the unregistered agreement dated 1.8.78 (Exhibit 1) was admissible for collateral purpose to prove the possession. He found that on defendant's own showing, the plaintiff refused to receive the rent for July, 1980 but the defendant has remitted an amount of Rs. 4. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The learned Munsiff found that the unregistered agreement dated 1.8.78 (Exhibit 1) was admissible for collateral purpose to prove the possession. He found that on defendant's own showing, the plaintiff refused to receive the rent for July, 1980 but the defendant has remitted an amount of Rs. 960/- by MO as rent for July to October, 1980 only on 10.10.80 and as the plaintiff refused to receive the MO also, he deposited a sum of Rs. 1,200/- as rents from July to November, 1980 in Court by a treasury challan on 10.11.80 (Exhibit Kha). He held that the deposit of rent in Court on 10.11.80 for July, August, September and October, 1980 did not satisfy section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, hereinafter `the Act'. Accordingly, he held that the defendant was defaulter. Secondly, he found that the defendant constructed a house on vacant land of the premises and that was a violation of the condition of agreement. On these two grounds, he decreed the suit for ejectment of the defendant, for arrear rent of Rs. 960/-, for compensation @ Rs. 10/- per diem from the date of suit till ejectment. 5. On appeal by the defendant, the learned Assistant District Judge, Tinsukia held that the unregistered agreement for the tenancy (Exhibit 1) was not admissible to prove the terms of agreement. He, therefore, held that the rent was payable at the end of each month. Thereafter, he found that on previous occasion, the plaintiff accepted the defendant's payment of accumu­lated rents for April, May and June, 1980 in a lump on 23.7.80. On this finding, he held that the rent was not payable at the end of each month and in practice, the plaintiff allowed the defendant to pay the rent according to defendant's convenience. Relying on Chitaranjan Paul vs. Sunil Choudhury, (1983) 1 GLR 268 and Bhabani Shankar vs. Laxmi Devi, (1984) 2 GLR 182, he held that the defendant's payment of Rs.1,200/- as rent from July to November, 1980 on 10.11.80 in Court fulfilled the condition of section 5(4) of the Act. Thus, he held that the defendant was not defaulter. Relying on Chitaranjan Paul vs. Sunil Choudhury, (1983) 1 GLR 268 and Bhabani Shankar vs. Laxmi Devi, (1984) 2 GLR 182, he held that the defendant's payment of Rs.1,200/- as rent from July to November, 1980 on 10.11.80 in Court fulfilled the condition of section 5(4) of the Act. Thus, he held that the defendant was not defaulter. He found that the defendant constructed the house on vacant land without the plaintiff's consent; but he was of the view that the defendant was a tenant only in respect to the house which do not include the vacant land of the premises. Therefore, he held that the defendant's construction of a house on the vacant land was of no consequence. Thus, he allowed the appeal by setting aside the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. Hence, this revision by the plaintiff. 6. The submission made by Mr. BK Goswami, learned counsel for the petitioner, is : on defendant's own pleading the plaintiff refused to receive the rent for the month of July and therefore, the appellate Court committed error of jurisdiction in holding that the deposit by the defendant of Rs. 1,200/ as rent from July to November, 1980 at a time satisfied the requirement of section 5(4) of the Act. He contended that the deposit made on 10.11.80 in Court was not according to section 5(4) of the Act and submitted that the two decisions relied on by the appellate Court do not apply to the instant case. I have checked up the two decisions. In (1983) 1 GLR 268 , the rent was payable within the first part of the subsequent month, but in practice, the landlord used to accept the rent for two months at a time. For September and October, 1978, the tenant paid the rent on 11.11.78 and the landlord accepted it. But when the tenant offered the rent for November and December, 1978, the landlord refused to receive, so, the tenant deposited the rent for those two months on 6.2.79 in Court. It was held that the rent for November and December fell due by 31.1.79 and as such, the deposit made by the tenant in Court on 6.2.79 satisfied the requirement of section 5(4) of the Act in respect of both the months. It was held that the rent for November and December fell due by 31.1.79 and as such, the deposit made by the tenant in Court on 6.2.79 satisfied the requirement of section 5(4) of the Act in respect of both the months. In (1984) 2 GLR 182, the monthly rent was payable at the end of the month of the tenancy according to the English calendar month, but in practice, the landlord used to collect the rent for 2/3 months in a lump by coming to the tenant according to his convenience and this practice continued for 18 years. In April, 1964, the rents became due for 3 months and landlord did not come to collect the rent, the tenant sent the rents for 3 months, i.e. for February to April, 1964, by Money Order on 9.5.64. The landlord refused to receive it, so, the tenant deposited three months' rent in Court. Again on 25.5.64 the tenant sent the rent for May, 1964 by Money Order. The landlord again refused it, so, the tenant deposited this amount also in Court. Since then, the tenant deposited the rent every month in Court with due notice to the landlord. There the questions posed for determination were: (1) What is the date when the rent had fallen due and (2) whether the tenant paid or tendered the rent to the landlord within a fortnight of its falling due. But, the decision did not say when in that case the rents fell due; when it was deposited in Court; and whether deposits were within a fortnight from the date when the rent fell due. So, it did not answer the questions posed. However, it was held that the tenant was not defaulter. Both these decisions therefore, do not apply to the instant case. The appellate Court was wrong in interpreting the two decisions. 7. So, it did not answer the questions posed. However, it was held that the tenant was not defaulter. Both these decisions therefore, do not apply to the instant case. The appellate Court was wrong in interpreting the two decisions. 7. Section 5(4) of the Act provides as follows: "(4) Where the landlord refuses to accept the lawful rent offered by his tenant, the tenant may, within a fortnight of its becoming due, deposit in Court the amount of such rent together with process fees for service of notice upon the landlord, and on receiving such deposit, the Court shall cause a notice of the receipt of such deposit to be served on the landlord, and the amount of the deposit may thereafter be withdrawn by the landlord on application made by him to the Court in that behalf. A tenant who has made such deposit shall not be treated as a defaulter under Clause (c) of the proviso to sub-section (1) of this section". In the instant case, common case of the parties is that the plaintiff refused to receive the rent for the month of July, 1980. The appellate Court found that since the tenancy was created by unregistered document, the rent was payable at the end of the month and within the last day of subsequent month. Therefore, the rent for July would fall due on 31.8.80. So, the defendant was bound to deposit the rent for July in Court within a fortnight from 31st day of August. 1980. Similarly, the rent for August. 1980 fell due on 30.9.80 and it had to be deposited within a fortnight from 30.9.80. The deposit made in Court on 10.11.80 is beyond fortnight from the date when the rent fell due. As such, the deposit did not satisfy section 5 (4) of the Act. From the mere fact that once, after 1.8.78, the plaintiff has accepted the rent for April, May and June, 1980 in a lump on 23.7.80 - it cannot be said that the plaintiff allowed the defendant to pay the rent at his convenience even after the refusal. The plaintiff complained the irregularity in payment and refused to accept the rent for July, 1980. It is not the case of the defendant that in September, 1980 the plaintiff refused his offer of the rent from July and August, 1980. The plaintiff complained the irregularity in payment and refused to accept the rent for July, 1980. It is not the case of the defendant that in September, 1980 the plaintiff refused his offer of the rent from July and August, 1980. So, even on the defendant's own pleading the rent for July fell due on the last day of August, 1980 and as the plaintiff refused it the rent for July should have been deposited in Court within a fortnight from the last day of August, 1980. Similarly, the rent for August, 1980, fell due on the last day of September, 1980 and it should have been deposited in Court within a fortnight form the last day of September, 1980. 8. On the ratio of the decisions in (1983) 1 GLR 268 and (1984) 2 GLR 182 (supra), I now answer to the question - when the rent falls due under section 5(1)(e) and 5(4) of the Act thus. It varies from case to case. In general, a monthly rent falls due on the last day of the following month. Where the parties agree that the monthly rent shall be paid by the fixed date, the rent falls due on the fixed date. But where in spite of agreement for payment by the fixed date the landlord used to collect rents sometimes for one month and sometimes for 2/3 months or even more at a time the rent shall be deemed to fall due not on the fixed date; in such a case, the accumulated rents fall due on the last day of the month of landlord's demand. And if, in such a case, the tenant, before being demanded by landlord, tendered accumulated rent and the landlord refuses to accept it, the rents will be deemed to fall due on the last day of the month of refusal. A tenant must pay the refused rent within a fortnight of such due date to avoid being a defaulter. 9. The learned Assistant District Judge clearly committed an error of jurisdiction in holding that the defendant was not a defaulter. As such, the defendant is liable for ejectment. As I decide the revision on this point, I do not think it necessary to deal with the other point - whether the defendant is also liable for ejectment for construction of house. 10. As such, the defendant is liable for ejectment. As I decide the revision on this point, I do not think it necessary to deal with the other point - whether the defendant is also liable for ejectment for construction of house. 10. In the result, the revision must be allowed which I hereby do. The decree of the learned Assistant District Judge, Tinsukia, is set aside. The decree passed by the learned Munsiff No.1. Tinsukia, for eviction, for arrear rent and for compensation from 1.1.80 to 14.12.80 is restored. However, the decree for compensation Rs.10/- per diem from the date of suit till ejectment is set aside. I make no order as to costs.