1. Heard Mr. Sheeladitya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.C. Goswami, learned counsel for the opposite parties. 2. This civil revision is directed against the concurrent findings of the learned courts below holding the present petitioner a defaulter and declaring bona fide requirement of the landlord for the suit premises and thereupon passing a decree of eviction on the basis of the said findings. The predecessors-in-interest of the opposite parties as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No. 20 of 1994 in the court of the learned Munsiff No. 1, Kamrup at Guwahati against the present petitioners as defendants. As per the pleading of the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 had entered into possession of two rooms of the suit premises w.e.f. 6.5.1977 at a monthly rent of Rs. 250 per month. Subsequently, the defendant No. 2 who happens to be the elder brother of the defendant No. 1 took all the four rooms of the said premises on rent w.e.f. 1.3.1995 at Rs. 750 per month. It was agreed that the rent should be paid within 1st week of each calendar month and shall be paid at the house of the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff till 1.6.1991 the defendants paid rent as per such agreement but thereafter they stopped paying rent and thus they rendered themselves to be evicted from the suit premises on the ground of default. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is an old lady and she has two sons of marriageable age for whose benefit possession of the 4 rooms of the suit premises is necessary. It is also stated in the plaint that the rooms are in dilapidated condition and are required to be renovated. The plaintiff, therefore, instituted the aforesaid title suit for eviction of the defendants from Schedule-B land and for recovery of arrear house rent amounting to Rs.21,750 at the rate of Rs. 750 per month along with future rents. 3. The defendants filed written statement which was subsequently amended in view of the amendment made in the plaint. In paragraph 10 of the amended plaint the defendants specifically stated that they met the plaintiff and paid him the house rent up to 31st January, 1994. This written statement was filed in the month of November, 2009. 3. The defendants filed written statement which was subsequently amended in view of the amendment made in the plaint. In paragraph 10 of the amended plaint the defendants specifically stated that they met the plaintiff and paid him the house rent up to 31st January, 1994. This written statement was filed in the month of November, 2009. Nowhere in the written statement the defendants did take any stand that even thereafter rent was being either paid or are being regularly deposited by them in the court. It is not the case of the defendants that they continued to deposit rent in the court under section 4(5) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 consequent to refusal to receive rent by the landlord/plaintiff. The learned court on such rival contentions of the parties framed as many as six issues and the same are quoted below : "1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the defendants are tenants under the plaintiff? 3. Whether the defendants are defaulters as alleged by the plaintiff? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get decree as prayed for? 5. To what other relief (s) the parties are entitled? 6. Whether the Schedule "B' land is being illegally possessed by the defendants?" 4. Out of the aforesaid issues, issue No. 3 is in regard to default. The plaintiff examined as many as three witnesses including herself. In course of evidence, the plaintiff specifically stated that rent for every month was supposed to be paid on the 1st day of the current month. There is no cross-examination on this point challenging the due date and/or the mode of payment. The trend of cross-examination shows that the defendant wanted to establish their case as against the claim of bona fide requirement made by the plaintiff and not much against the allegation of default. When the PW 1 (plaintiff) specifically stated that no payment was made since 1991. Even in cross-examination she remained consistent saying that for 5/5% years no rent was paid by the defendants. Such evidence of the plaintiff coupled with the pleadings made in paragraph 10 of the written statement received due attention of the learned trial court and accordingly by judgment and decree dated 29.6.2011 the learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the defendants are defaulters. Such evidence of the plaintiff coupled with the pleadings made in paragraph 10 of the written statement received due attention of the learned trial court and accordingly by judgment and decree dated 29.6.2011 the learned trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that the defendants are defaulters. The learned court also held that the plaintiff had bona fide requirement for the suit premises. The suit was decreed in entirety not only for eviction but also for realization of arrear rent w.e.f. 1.6.1991. 5. Aggrieved, the defendants preferred Title Appeal No. 62 of 2011 in the court of learned Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup at Guwahati on the basis of the finding of the learned trial court. The appeal was admitted and notice was issued to the opposite parties. The learned appellate court after due consideration of the materials available on record dismissed the appeal by judgment and decree dated 30.11.2012 upholding the finding of the learned trial court as to default and bona fide requirement. The learned 1st appellate court relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Abdul Matin Choudhury v. Nityananda Dutta Banik, (1992) 2 GIT 590 and noticed that even if during pendency of suit or appeal the defendants fails to pay rent, he incurs liability of being evicted from the suit premises. With all these findings the appeal of the defendants was dismissed. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the two judgments referred to above. 6. The question as to default as well as bona fide requirement though are questions of fact, yet a court within the meaning of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 derives jurisdiction to adjudicate a Us only on existence of such fact. Therefore a Division Bench of this court in the case of Ram Karandas Agarwal, 1989 GHC 90 held that the question as to default and bona fide requirement are really jurisdictional facts and as such, sitting in second appeal/civil revision the court is entitled to examine the correctness of the findings of the learned courts below in regard to findings on default and bona fide requirement. 7. 7. In an eviction suit against a statutory tenant under the Assam Urban Rent Control Act, 1972 the essential material facts a landlord is required to plead are as follows : (i) there is landlord tenant relationship with effect from a particular date with or without a written agreement; (ii) the quantum of rent payable per month; (iii) the due date of paying the monthly rent; (iv) the mode of payment; (v) concise statement as to default, bona fide requirement, subletting, violation of terms and conditions etc. as the ground or grounds may be in a given case; and (vi) prayer for eviction, realization of arrear rent and / or mesne profit as the case may be. 8. In case any or all of these pleadings are denied by the defendant/ tenant, burden falls on landlord to establish his aforesaid pleadings by adducing valid cogent evidence. Even in an ex parte judgment of eviction under section 5 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, a court is requited to record findings on each of the items referred to above subject to variation on the ground of eviction and prayer in the suit. For instance, in a suit for eviction on the ground of default, landlord must plead and prove the quantum of rent payable per month, the due date and the mode of payment of rent and a court passing a decree is required to satisfy itself as to such essential facts and thereupon to arrive at definite finding on objective basis. Similarly, in a suit for eviction on the ground of bona fide requirement it is necessary to plead and prove the nature of requirement like use or reconstruction of the premises, etc. 9. Keeping in mind such position of law this court proceeded to decide as to whether the findings of the learned courts below in regard to findings on default and bona fide requirement are based on materials on record. In paragraph 10 of the amended written statement, the defendants have specifically stated that they had paid rent up to January 1994. There is no averment anywhere that even thereafter and during pendency of the suit they continued to deposit house rent in the court. As against such averment the question may legitimately arise as to what is the mode of payment and what is the due date in the present case. There is no averment anywhere that even thereafter and during pendency of the suit they continued to deposit house rent in the court. As against such averment the question may legitimately arise as to what is the mode of payment and what is the due date in the present case. In the plaint necessary pleading has been made by the plaintiff alleging that the due date is the 1st week of current month and agreed mode of payment of rent is that tenant should make payment at the house of the plaintiff. Even in course of evidence PW 1 herself asserted that the due date is the 1st day of every current month. Neither in the written statement nor in the evidence did the defendants challenge the veracity of the pleading of the plaintiff as to due date or mode of payment and as such, there is no escape from the finding that the plaintiff succeeded to establish not only the quantum of rent but also the other two items, viz., mode of payment and the due date in the present case. Once it is established that the 1st day of every current month as per the English calendar is the due date and it is apparent from the pleadings of the defendants that they did not make any payment after January, 1994, the fact that the defendants have become defaulters is apparent. Section 5 of The Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 protects a statutory tenant against eviction only "so long he pays rent". Since in the case in hand, the defendants are not paying rent, they are not entitled to protection under section 5 of The Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. 10. Mr. Sheeladitya has strenuously urged that the findings of the learned courts below in regard to bona fide requirement and default are not based on materials on record but having gone through the deposition of the parties as well as the pleadings it does not appear that such argument of the learned counsel has any force. Accordingly there is no merit in this revision petition. The findings of the learned courts below as to bona fide requirement and default being based on materials on record cannot be interfered with in exercise of revisional jurisdiction by this court. 11. This revision petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.