JUDGMENT I.A. Ansari, J. 1. This revision is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 20.3.2006, passed, in Title Appeal No. 42/1999, by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 1, Silchar, dismissing the appeal and upholding thereby the judgment and decree, dated 21.7.1999, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division) No. 4, Silchar, in Title Suit No. 14 of 1994, whereby the learned trial court had decreed the plaintiff-opposite party's suit on the ground of defaulter and bona fide requirement applied to the court for direction to the plaintiff to repair the suit premises. This application gave rise to Misc. Case No. 675/1984. Though the plaintiff contested this case, the court directed the plaintiff to do the necessary repairing work. The plaintiff preferred an appeal against the said order. Misc. Appeal No. 53/1985, which had so arisen, was, eventually, dismissed. As the plaintiff did not take up the repairing work, the defendant repaired the house by spending a sum of Rs. 5,200. Before the defendant could, however, apply to the court for recovery of the money, which he had spent on the said repairing work, the plaintiff came with a proposal for compromise and it was, then, agreed to between the parties concerned that the said sum of Rs. 5,200 would be treated as advance rent. This apart, the defendant had been tendering rent each month, but the plaintiff, for the purpose of enhancement of the rent, refused to accept rent, so offered. The defendant, then, deposited the rent, for the month of November, in the first week of December, 1990. However, the plaintiff came to the defendant, in the first week of December, 1990, with a proposal for compromise demanding that the rent be enhanced to Rs. 600 per month. The defendant agreed to this proposal, and the plaintiff accordingly took a sum of Rs. 1,800 as advance for three months of rent and gave a receipt in this regard. As the defendant was already in possession of the challan, whereby he had deposited the rent, the plaintiff took away the said challan from the defendant by saying that it would not be necessary for the defendant to deposit the rent in the court henceforth. 1,800 as advance for three months of rent and gave a receipt in this regard. As the defendant was already in possession of the challan, whereby he had deposited the rent, the plaintiff took away the said challan from the defendant by saying that it would not be necessary for the defendant to deposit the rent in the court henceforth. Though the plaintiff had promised to come back after a few days and execute a deed of settlement in this regard, the plaintiff did not come back and instead, he instituted the suit. The defendant is, thus, not a defaulter, the suit premises is also not bona fide required by the plaintiff inasmuch as he does not carry out any business and he lives on rent received from various tenant. The defendant accordingly sought for dismissal of the suit. 2. While the plaintiff examined himself as witness, the defendant examined a witness, who was the manager of the defendant. Based on the evidence, so adduced, the learned trial court held that the defendant was a defaulter and also that the suit premises were bona fide required by the plaintiff. Based on the conclusions, so reached, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs. Though the defendant preferred an appeal as indicated hereinabove, the appeal too having been dismissed, protection under Section 5(4) of the said Act, he must satisfy the court, if the landlord alleges non-payment of rent to him, that the rent was either paid to the landlord or had been deposited in the court in terms of the provisions of Section 5(4) of the said Act. [See Kali Kumar Sen and Anr. v. Makhan Lal Biswas and Anr. AIR 1969 Gau 66 FB]. 3. Bearing in mind what is indicated above, when I turn to the facts of the present case, what attracts eyes prominently is that the plaintiff's specific case is that the defendant had been irregularly making payment of rent and when the plaintiff asked the defendant to either pay the rent regularly or vacate the suit premises, the defendant started applying to the court for depositing the rent, though before making such application, the defendant never offered the rent to him as the landlord and that even the deposit of such rent had not been made within the prescribed period or in accordance with law. This apart, it has been the plaintiff's further case that since November, 1990, the defendant had been a defaulter. 4. In the face of the above allegations made against him, it was the duty of the defendant to prove to the satisfaction of the court that he had either paid the rent to the landlord, when the rent had become due, or that he had deposited the rent, on the landlord's refusal to receive the rent, in the court. 5. As against the case, which the plaintiff set up, the defendant's case has been that he had spent. Rs. 5,200 on repairing the suit house and the plaintiff had agreed to treat the said amount as advance rent. It has been the further case of the defendant that though He had deposited rent for the month of November, 1990, in the court, in the first week of December, 1990, the plaintiff had come with a proposal to compromise, the compromise was accordingly reached enhancing the monthly rent to Rs. 6,000 and in terms of the compromise, so reached, the plaintiff received Rs. 1,800 as advance rent for three months and gave receipt in acknowledgement of the amount so received. This receipt, had been proved as Ext. A. There is however, no date mentioned on this receipt. The plaintiff has, however, admitted, in his cross-examination, that Ext. A is, a receipt, wherein he had taken rent, in advance, for three months undisputed. Coupled with the above, the plaintiff has kept the suit premises under lock and key without putting the same to use; hence, the finding of the learned courts below to the effect that the plaintiff required the suit premises bona fide cannot be said to be perverse and not in accordance with law. 6. Because of what have been discussed and pointed out above, I do not find that the findings, reached by the learned courts below, suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual. The revision is, thus, wholly without merit and must fail. 7. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this revision is dismissed with cost.