JUDGMENT Ranjan Gogoi, J. 1. Heard Mr. P. Borthakur, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M. Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 2. The facts in brief may be noted at the outset. Title Suit No. 119/94 was instituted by the present Respondent as Plaintiff seeking eviction of the revision Petitioner, i.e. the Defendant in the suit, from the suit premises on the ground that the Defendant had defaulted in payment of rent from March, 1999 onwards. 3. The Defendant in the written statement filed did not dispute that the Plaintiff was the landlord of the suit premises after the death of the original landlord, one Abu Naseer Khairul Alam. In the written statement filed, the Defendant had clearly stated that he had paid rent to the Plaintiff until Title Suit No. 77/90 was filed against the Plaintiff claiming title to the suit property. As the title of the Plaintiff to the suit premises became doubtful in view of Title Suit No. 70/90, the Defendant thought it proper that he should withhold payment of the rent to the Plaintiff-landlord. 4. The facts stated in the Written Statement are the virtual admission on the part of the Defendant-tenant that he had defaulted in the matter of payment of the rent in respect of the suit premises. As the definition of 'the landlord in Section 2 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 contemplates a landlord to mean any person, who is for the time being receiving or entitled to receive the rent and as admittedly, the Plaintiff was receiving the rent for the suit premises, the admitted actions of the Defendant in withholding rent to the Plaintiff on the grounds stated would make him a defaulter and, therefore, liable to eviction. 5. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity, much less any jurisdictional error in the judgment and decree under challenge. The revision petition therefore, shall stand dismissed. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed