This second appeal is by the defendant against the judgment and decree gassed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Golaghat in Title Appeal No.13 of 1988 affirming the decree of learned Munsif no.1 Golaghat in Title Sujt No. 27 of 1987. The appeal was admitted on the substantial question of law as to whether the defendant, who is tenant in respect of only the land within Golaghat town, is entitled to get the benefit of not being a defaulter under Assam Non Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short the Act), though the rent was deposited in tjie Court under the provision of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. 2. There is no dispute that ths plaintiff is the owner of the suit land and that the defeadant was inducted as a tenant for the land at a monthly rent and thereafter the defendant used to reside on the suit land by constructing- a temporary house. It is also not disputed that a notice as required under section 11 of the Act was served on the defendant 'and the reply was gjven by him and that the defendant did not vacate the land for which the present suit was laid. Though the plaintiff has urged that there was a written agreement on tenancy and this is disputed by the Defendant. It is also not disputed that the defendant did not pay rent from January 1983 to 1985 to the plaintiff but deposited the rent in the Court under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. On the, pleadings, the learned trial. Court framed as many as six issues including the issue regarding bonafide requirement of the land by the plaintiff for use and pf occupation and also whether the defendant is a defaulter. Both the Courts below decreed the suit and hence the appeal. 3. Heard Mr.Ahmed, learned counsel for the appeljant and Mr.Mahanta, learned counsel for the respondent. 4. Section 5 of the Act gives protection to tenant who has constructed a permanent structure on the land provided the conditions laid down in the said section are fulfilled. In the case in hand there is no plea by the defendant that he has constructed any permanent structure. 4. Section 5 of the Act gives protection to tenant who has constructed a permanent structure on the land provided the conditions laid down in the said section are fulfilled. In the case in hand there is no plea by the defendant that he has constructed any permanent structure. Though the plaintiff has taken the plea that the land is required for his own use and occupation it is not necessary to consider this point as bonafide requirement is not a condition for getting a decree for ejectment under the Act 5 Only point that is required to be considered in this appeal is whether the rent deposited by the defendant/tenant in the Court under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 can be deemed to be a valid payment of rent legally under the provisions of the Act. 6. The Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 is for protection of a house but the present Act provides for protection of a tenant in respect of vacant land. In the Act there is no provisions for deposit of the rent in the Court presumably because sub-section (3) of section 5 gives adequate protection to a tenant after a decree is passed on the ground of defaulter. So by no stress of imagination it can be said that the rent deposited under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 can be treated as a valid deposit of rent by tenant under the Act. If it is held otherwise, it would amount to inserting a new clause in the Act which cannot be done by the Court. I, therefore, held that merely because that the defendant deposited rent in the Court under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 it cannot be said that the defendant-tenant paid rent to his landlord through Court under the Act Therefore, the defendant is a defaulter in the case in hand. 7. Factually also the defendant is a defaulter inasmuch as the rent was deposited in the Court on two different dates namely on 8.5:86 and 23.11.87. In other words the defendant did not pay rent regularly to his landlord, namely, the plaintiff. There is nothing on record to show that thereafter the defendant also deposited the rent in the Court. Therefore, he is a defaulter. 8. In other words the defendant did not pay rent regularly to his landlord, namely, the plaintiff. There is nothing on record to show that thereafter the defendant also deposited the rent in the Court. Therefore, he is a defaulter. 8. For what has been stated above, I hold that Courts below rightly decreed the suit on the ground that the defendant is a defaulter of rent. In the result the appeal is dismissed, no cost.