This revision petition has been referred by the petitioner against the judgment and decree dated 11.5.90 and 17.5.90 respectively passed by the learned Assistant District Judge, Barpeta in TA No.25 of 1989. 2. The facts as emerges is that the plaintiff tenanted the suit premises to the principal defendant with effect from 1st day of Kartik of 1378 BS till Chaitra 1378 BS (corresponding to 1971) for (six) months at a monthly rent of Rs.80/-by executing lease deed on 15.10.71. The plaintiff required the suit premises for the use of his unemployed son and also for default of the tenant/defendant to pay the rent. The defendant having failed to vacate the suit premises, the plaintiff filed the TS 110 of 1974 for ejectment and for payment of arrear rent on the ground of default. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but on appeal the suit was dismissed. A revision petition being No. 103 of 1980 was filed by the plaintiff and by judgment and order dated 12.3.82 the revision petition was rejected by this Court holding that the principal defendant was not a defaulter, directing the tenant/defendant to pay the arrear rent. As the tenant/respondent failed to pay the rent in compliance of the High Court's order the plaintiff petitioner again filed TS 141 of 1983 both for default and for bonafide requirement. In this suit along with the plea of default the revision petitioner also took the pleading for bonafide requirement for construction of the house in the suit premises. The trial Court dismissed the suit coming to the conclusion that the defendant was not a defaulter and that property was not required for bonafide requirement by his judgment dated 29.4.89. Appeal being TA No.25 of 1989 was filed in the Court of the Assistant District Judge, Barpeta and by order dated 11.5.90 the lower appellate Court held the opposite party as defaulter and that the land is required by the plaintiff for his own use and construction. It was, however, held that the suit was bad for non-compliance with the legal notice as required under section 106 of the TP Act. Having held so the lower appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff by dismissing the suit rejected the prayer for ejectment. The suit was however decreed for recovery of Rs. It was, however, held that the suit was bad for non-compliance with the legal notice as required under section 106 of the TP Act. Having held so the lower appellate Court upheld the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff by dismissing the suit rejected the prayer for ejectment. The suit was however decreed for recovery of Rs. 1,400/ -for the period of 14 months with compensation of Rs.280/- @ 25%. 3. In the revision petition before this Court the grounds assailing the impugned judgment and decree are: that the tenant/ petitioner failed to deposit the rent in the Court within due time i.e. within 14 days from the due date, that the premises required for his own use and for reconstruction, and that no notice under section 108 of TP Act is required in a case under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act (the Act). 4. On the point of default the learned senior counsel for the petitioner Mr. Medhi as well as Mr. Talukdar/learned counsel for the respondent have insisted the Court to examine the record by submitting that for the interest of justice the revisional Court can re-examine the correctness of the appreciation of evidence on record. Mr. Medhi has referred the case of Bhagawan Das vs. Rajdev Singh ( AIR 1990 SC 723 ). Now settled position of law is that findings on the issue of default and bonafide requirement is a finding of mixed question of law and fact and it is open to the revisional Court to consider the correctness of such findings. 4A. From the record in TS No.4 of 1983 it is seen that the Court called for NJ Case record (NJ Case No.4/83, 31/84 and 66/84). Order dated 15.12.88 indicates that principal defendant was examined as DW 1 and documents including records of NJ Cases were brought before the Court 5. It is seen on the record that the DW l(the principal defendant) stated (in cross-examination) that he did not pay money before the case was filed, that he was not able to pay the rent due to continuance of the case, that he had not paid compensation 25% as directed by the Court on failure to vacate the suit premises; that he did not deposit the balance amount due for payment of decretal amount, that he did not pay rent for the last month also. 6. 6. On the issue of bonafide requirement his deposition on record is that the shop house is old; it required repair; that the plaintiff had a grocery shop and that he did not know if the plaintiff had any land within bazar; that the plaintiff ' had started his shop in a room of the Municipality. 7. As discussed above records of NJ Cases which were not exhibited were taken to judicial notice. Mr. Medhi has submitted that this prove that there is no rent deposit under section 5 (4) of the Rent Control Act as claimed by the respondents. 8. In a series of decisions the Apex Court as well as the High Court have decided that - section 5 (4) of the Act lays down the condition that the rent may be deposited by the tenant in the Court when there is a refusal by the landlord to accept the rent offered by the tenant and after being satisfied that the person is a tenant, that the deposit is made on refusal by landlord to accept the rent. The proceeding under section 5 (4) of the Act is a proceeding in the civil Court and therefore procedure laid down under Rule 42 of the Civil Rules and Orders framed by Gauhati High Court required to be followed in such cases. Therefore any deposit without being accompanied by the process fee cannot be said to be a valid deposit in accordance with law and for non-compliance of section 5 (4), the tenant is evictable. The failure on the part of the respondent to prove the non-judicial cases compelled the Court to believe that there was non compliance of section 5 (4). 9. On the issue of bonafide requirement I find no material to interfere with the findings of the lower appellate Court. Clause (e) of section 5 of the Act enables the landlord to evict the tenant on the ground of repairment/construction. On facts of the case Court should be satisfied about the genuineness of the claim. In the suit as well as in this revision petition the plaintiff/petitioner has attempted to show that the suit premises was required for his own house and occupation and for reconstruction. It is also in evidence on record that the house is an old house and required repairing. The Apex Court in the case of Metalware & Co. In the suit as well as in this revision petition the plaintiff/petitioner has attempted to show that the suit premises was required for his own house and occupation and for reconstruction. It is also in evidence on record that the house is an old house and required repairing. The Apex Court in the case of Metalware & Co. vs. Bansilal ( AIR 1979 SC 1559 ) held that existing condition of the building is relevant while considering the plaint must prove that the condition of the house is such that it require immediate demolition. The suit premises also found valuable as it is situated in the prominent place for business purpose which is developed, would fetch more profit to the plaintiff. Further the plaintiff collected construction materials and got ready the plan of the house passed by appropriate office. Those are vital factors which the first appellate Court considered with reason and came to a finding. I find no material on record to take a different view in the findings of the Court below. 10. It is seen, the first appellate Court dismissed the appeal only on the non issuance of notice under section 106 of TP Act. 11. The requirement of issuance of notice section 106 of the TP Act was already been decided by the Apex Court in its landmark decisions as decided in the case of Dhanpal Chertiar vs. Yesodai Animal ( AIR 1979 SC 1745 ) wherein it was held that in order to get a decree or order of eviction against a tenant under any State Rent Control Act, it is not necessary to give notice under section 106 of the TP Act; that determination of a lease in accordance with TP Act is unnecessary and is a mere surplusage because the landlord can not get eviction of the tenant even after such, determination. The Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 decides the relationship of tenant and landlord and other incidental matters relating to it. The finding of the lower appellate Court in this issue is set aside as misconceived and illegal. 12. In view of my above discussion, I upheld the findings of the lower appellate Court regarding issue No.5 and issue No.6 i.e. regarding the question of default and bonafide requirement and set aside the findings on the requirement of notice under section 106 of TP Act. 13. 12. In view of my above discussion, I upheld the findings of the lower appellate Court regarding issue No.5 and issue No.6 i.e. regarding the question of default and bonafide requirement and set aside the findings on the requirement of notice under section 106 of TP Act. 13. The petition is allowed with the modification. The principal respondent is directed to pay Rs. 1,000/- as costs to the revision petitioner plaintiff.