JUDGMENT H.N. Sarma, J. 1. The judgment and decree dated 23.12.99 passed in Title Appeal No. 46/95 by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.) No. 3, Guwahati affirming the judgment and decree dated 5.9.95 passed by the learned Munsiff, Rangia in Title Suit No. 32/87 dismissing the suit of the Plaintiff/Petitioner is under challenge in this revision petition. 2. The Plaintiff/Petitioner filed Title Suit No. 32/87 in the court of learned Sadar Munsiff, Guwahati against the Defendant/opposite party interalia praying for- 1) A decree for ejectment of the Defendant from the suit premises and delivery of the khas possession thereof. 2) A decree of arrear rent of Rs. 7,200/ 3) A decree for interest @ 10% from the arrear rent 4) A decree for compensation @ Rs. 20/w.e.f. 10.10.84. 3. The pleaded case of the Plaintiff/Petitioner is that the suit premises which is an Assam type, house containing several rooms (described in the schedule of the plaint) originally taken on rent by the Defendant/opp. Party from M/s. Ram Chandra Dungarmal, a partnership firm at Rangia town on monthly rent @ Rs. 150/-. The said firm was dissolved on 11.9.78 and the suit premises having fallen on the share of the Plaintiff/Petitioner, the said fact was informed to the Defendant. Subsequently by an agreement made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant monthly rent was raised @ Rs. 200/- and to be paid within 15 days of each month of English calendar. The Defendant continued to occupy the suit premises since October. 1978 and paid monthly rent upto 31.8.81. Since 1.9.81 the Defendant defaulted in payment of the rent and inspite of repeated demands, the arrear rent has not been paid. It was further pleaded that the suit premises being an old one requires major repairing to protect it from ruining and for renovation but the Defendant inspite of demands made by the Plaintiff, the Defendant did not vacate the same. Hence, the suit was filed for ejectment of the tenant along with the aforesaid payer. 4. Summon of the suit having been served and the Defendant appeared and contested the suit by filling written statements. Hence, the suit was filed for ejectment of the tenant along with the aforesaid payer. 4. Summon of the suit having been served and the Defendant appeared and contested the suit by filling written statements. In the written statements, the Defendant denied the title of the Plaintiff so far the suit premises is concerned and claimed that Plaintiff was a tenant under M/s. Ramchandra Dungarmal and rent is also being deposited in the court on being refused to accept the same by the landlord. Further allegations made in the plaint are also denied. The learned trial court upon pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues: 1) Whether the Defendant is a defaulter? 2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of arrear rent? 3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to interest etc.? 4) Whether the Plaintiff bonafide requires the house? 5) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claim? Thereafter, an additional issued was framed as issue No. 6 which is as follows: 6) Whether there is landlord and tenant relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant? 5. During the course of hearing, both the parties examined three witnesses each on their behalf and exhibited some documents. 6. The learned trial court, deciding the issue No. 6, that is whether there is any relationship as landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, considered the evidence and materials on record and on such consideration, interalia held that after dissolution of the firm, M/s. Ram Chandra Dungarmal, the suit premises has fallen on the share of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff is the owner of the suit premises and there exists relationship of landlord and tenant amongst the Plaintiff and the Defendant and thus this issue No. 6 is answered in favour of the Plaintiff. However, the learned trial court decided the issue Nos. 1 to 4 against the Plaintiff and in the result the suit was dismissed the such vide judgment and order dated 5.9.95. The aforesaid judgment was challenged by the Plaintiff/Petitioner in Title Appeal No. 46/95 in the court of learned Assistant Dist. and Sessions Judge No. 1, Guwahati which was later on transferred to the court of the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Divn.) No.3, Guwahati for necessary disposal. The aforesaid judgment was challenged by the Plaintiff/Petitioner in Title Appeal No. 46/95 in the court of learned Assistant Dist. and Sessions Judge No. 1, Guwahati which was later on transferred to the court of the learned Civil Judge, (Sr. Divn.) No.3, Guwahati for necessary disposal. The learned appellate court vide judgment and order dated 23.12.99, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff, Rangia in Title Suit No. 32/87. Hence, this revision petition. 7. I have heard Mr. L. Talukdar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. R.K. Jain, learned Counsel for the Respondent. 8. It is submitted by Mr. Talukdar that both the courts below have committed manifest error touching the jurisdiction in passing the impugned judgment and decree in as much as both the courts below have failed to take into consideration of provision and scope of Section 5(4) of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act and illegally held that the Plaintiff was not a defaulter in payment of the rent. It is further submitted that the learned Courts below failed to make any objective consideration regarding bonafide requirement of the said suit premises and misguided in negating the contentions raised by the Plaintiff relating to bonafide requirement of the suit home. 9. Mr. Jain, learned Counsel for the Respondent a per contra submitted that this revision petition is based on concurrent findings of fact which this revisional Court is not entitled to disturb in as much as the impugned decisions have been arrived at on proper appreciation and consideration of the evidence and other materials available on record and this Court is not entitled to re-appreciate those facts and, accordingly, this revision petition is liable to be dismissed. It is summarily submitted by Mr. Jain that the Respondent is not a defaulter inasmuch as he duly paid the rent by depositing the same in the Court and there is no bonafide requirement of the suit premises. 10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. The learned Counsel for the parties also led me to the relevant portions and statements made by the respective witnesses during their course of deposition before the learned trial court. 11. 10. I have considered the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. The learned Counsel for the parties also led me to the relevant portions and statements made by the respective witnesses during their course of deposition before the learned trial court. 11. In defending his case, the Defendant has denied the title of the Plaintiff and the said denial being very specific and to that effect the issue No. 6 was framed by the learned trial court. The learned trial court discussing the evidence and the materials available on record arrived at a finding that after dissolution of the firm the suit premises was on the share of the Plaintiff and, accordingly, the Plaintiff/Petitioner was the owner of the suit premises. It is also held by the learned trial court in deciding the concerned issue that there exists a relationship of landlord and tenant between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The learned appellate court has put his seal approval on the findings of the learned trial court in issue No. 6. The Defendant/Respondent has not challenged the aforesaid finding on issue No. 6. According to the decision on the aforesaid issue has attained its finality and is binding on the parties. 12. The Defendant examined himself in the suit as D.W. 1 and has deposed inter alia that he had not paid the rent to the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff was not the landlord of the suit premises. Thus, the admitted fact is that the Defendant is defaulter in payment of the rent as because the Plaintiff, according to him, is not the landlord. Section 116 of the Evidence Act prohibits a tenant from denying title, of the landlord. The categorical findings of the courts below are that the Plaintiff/Petitioner is the owner of the suit land. The records of the case also do not justify to come to a different finding. The Defendant has not proved the non-judicial case by which the Defendant stated to have deposited the rent. Nor the notice of the said non-judicial cases were proved to have been issued the suit justifying to arrive at a finding that the Defendant have deposit the rent in compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act (for short, 'the Act'). Nor the notice of the said non-judicial cases were proved to have been issued the suit justifying to arrive at a finding that the Defendant have deposit the rent in compliance of the mandatory provision of Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act (for short, 'the Act'). It is not res-integra that Section 5(4) of the aforesaid Act is a mandatory one. This Court in a catena of decisions consider it to be a mandatory one as reported in 1) 2000 (2) GLT 75 (Rup Chand Daftary v. Ashim Ranjan Modak and Anr., 2) 2005 (1) GLT 399 : 2005 (2) GLR 43 (Bhagawan Pd. Sahu v. Dipak Bhagawati and Ors. and 3) 1995 (3) GLR 233 : (Mohan Kumar Agarwala (Goenka) v. P. Rasiwasia). 13. The materials available on record, it is disclosed that even before the alleged deposit of the rent before the trial court, the tenant has not offered the rent to the Plaintiff and on such refusal only, he has deposited the rent in the court. From the aforesaid discussions, it can safely be held that Plaintiff has proved that the tenant/Respondent has not discharged his obligation under Section 5(4) of the Act that the rent in question were deposited in the court in accordance with aforesaid mandatory provisions of law. Accordingly, the finding of the learned courts below on issue No. 1 is not correct and the said finding was arrived at without considering the relevant provision of law and as such the said finding on issue No. 1 is set aside and it is held that Defendant was a defaulter in payment of the suit rent of the suit premises. So far the issue No. 4 which relates to bonafide requirement, it was also on the evidence on record that the Plaintiff requires the suit house for his own business after partition of the partnership firm and the said fact was proved by the Plaintiff through P.W. 1, 2 and 3. The Defendant/Respondent challenged the bonafide requirement of the suit premises interalia in the ground that the Plaintiff has a godown in Rangia town itself and also started construction of the house wherein he can easily start his business and accordingly, the suit house is not required for his bonafide requirement. The Defendant/Respondent challenged the bonafide requirement of the suit premises interalia in the ground that the Plaintiff has a godown in Rangia town itself and also started construction of the house wherein he can easily start his business and accordingly, the suit house is not required for his bonafide requirement. The learned appellate court on the question of requirement of such home for such bonafide requirement has not discussed the issue objectively. The learned appellate court rejected the contention on the ground that the Plaintiff has constructed a three storied is building at Rangia town. The bonafide requirement is to be decided on objective consideration upon the proved facts. 14. The Apex Court in the case reported on 2005 (8) SCC 252 (Sail Nagjee Purushotham and Co. Ltd. v. Vimalabai Prabhulal and Ors.) interalia held as follows: In the case of Pratap Rai Tanwani v. Uttam Chand reported in (2004) 8 SCC 490 it was held that the bonafide requirement of the land lord has to be seen on the date of petition and the subsequent events intervening due to protracted litigation will not be relevant. It was held that the crucial date is the date of petition. Their Lordships further observed that the normal rule is that the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined on the date of the petition and that subsequent events can be taken into consideration for moulding the reliefs provided such events had a material impact on those rights and obligations. It was further observed by Their Lordships that it is stark reality that the longer is the life of the litigation the more would be the number of developments sprouting up during the long interregnum. Therefore, the courts have to take a very pragmatic approach of the matter. It is common experience in our country that specially landlord-tenant litigation prolongs for a long period. It is true that neither can the person who has started the litigation sit idle nor can the development of the events be stopped by him. Therefore, the crucial event should be taken as on the date when the suit for eviction was filed unless the subsequent event materially changed the ground of relief. 15. It is true that neither can the person who has started the litigation sit idle nor can the development of the events be stopped by him. Therefore, the crucial event should be taken as on the date when the suit for eviction was filed unless the subsequent event materially changed the ground of relief. 15. On the basis of the aforesaid observation of the Apex Court, I find that the learned court below have committed manifest error of law in not considering that such bonafide requirement of the Plaintiff has to been seen on the date of the petition and the subsequent events intervening due to protracted litigation will not be relevant considering to reject such contention of the landlord. Accordingly, the finding in that issue is also reversed as the Plaintiff could proved or the date of the petition, that the suit house was bonafide required by him. 16. On consideration of the aforesaid discussion, the suit of the Plaintiff is decreed. At this stage, Mr. Jain learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that he maybe granted sometime to vacate the suit premises and Mr. Talukdar, learned Counsel for the Plaintiff in. his fairness has not objected the same and submitted that the Plaintiff is suffering for more than 20 years in the process. It is submitted that the Defendant/Respondent is carrying his business over the suit premises and that apart, he is also using a part of the suit premises for his residential purpose. The Defendant is stated to have been suffering from different ailments and also the daughter of the Defendant is suffering from illness and accordingly, he prays for 12 (twelve) months time for vacating the suit premises, wherein his established business is continuing. 17. Upon consideration of the aforesaid facts and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and the area where the suit premises is located and considering the availability of the house at Rangia town, the Defendant/Respondent is allowed 9(nine) months time from today to vacate the suit premises on condition that 1) the Respondent/tenant shall within a period of 2(two) weeks from today shall file an undertaking in writing supported by an affidavit before the learned trial court that he would deliver vacant possession of the suit premises on or before the expiry of 9(nine) months from today i.e. 5.4.2006. 2) that the Defendant would continue to pay the rent of Rs. 20/- per day i.e. Rs. 600/- per month for the aforesaid period to the Plaintiff for occupation of the suit premises for those period, 3) the arrear rent, if any, shall also be paid by the Defendant. If the defendant has already deposited such rent in the Court, the rent for the period for which has been deposited need not be paid again and 4) if any of the conditions mentioned above is violated, the decree would be put in into execution. 18. Subject to aforesaid terms, this revision petition is allowed and the suit of the Plaintiff/Petitioner is decreed. Petition allowed