N. Chaudhury, J.:-- This application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by plaintiff of Title Suit No.53/2006 challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court. 2. The present petitioner as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.53/2006 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No.1, Nalbari stating that the suit premises described in the schedule to the plaint originally belonged to his father Late Karuna Narayan Choudhury. The defendant No.1 became a tenant under his father with respect to the suit premises at a monthly rental of Rs.1500/-. After death of his father all the ancestral properties were vested amongst the legal heirs and thereupon the suit premises has fallen in his share. He has been collecting rent from the defendant No.1 but the defendant failed to make payment of rent since June, 2006 till date. Moreover, he does not have any other residential accommodation at Nalbari. The suit premises has become dilapidated and so it has become necessary to be reconstructed/renovated for his own use and occupation. With these statement of facts, the plaintiff prayed that the suit be decreed for realisation of Rs.36,000/- towards arrear rent and for recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendant No.1 from the suit premises. 3. On being summoned the defendant No.1 appeared and contested the proceeding. In paragraph 11 of the written statement he stated that he became a tenant with respect to the suit premises under the father of the plaintiff and the proforma defendants. Earlier the original landlord used to collect rent himself but after the death of original landlord rent was being collected by one of his sons, namely, Prasanta Narayan Choudhury. According to him, monthly rent was Rs.1000/- and the same was being collected by proforma defendant No.4 (Prasanta Narayan Choudhury) till the month of May, 2006. He did not issue any receipt against the collection. The averment made in paragraph 6 of the plaint that the plaintiff does not have a house of his own at Nalbari Town was denied by the defendant No.1 in paragraph 15 of his written statement. He did not issue any receipt against the collection. The averment made in paragraph 6 of the plaint that the plaintiff does not have a house of his own at Nalbari Town was denied by the defendant No.1 in paragraph 15 of his written statement. It was further claimed that proforma defendant No.4 collected rent for the month of May, 2006 in the month of June, 2006 but in the month of June, 2006 the defendant No.1 received a pleader's notice dated 05.06.2006 from the plaintiff. According to him, he offered rent for the month of June, 2006 to proforma defendant No.4 who used to collect the rent earlier whereupon he asked the defendant No.1 to pay rent for the month of June, 2006 to the plaintiff in view of service of pleader's notice. The defendant No.1 thereafter offered rent for the month of June, 2006 to the plaintiff in the first week of July, 2006 but he refused to accept the same. Thereafter, he sent the same rent by money order on 07.07.2006. As the plaintiff refused to accept the rent he was compelled to deposit the same in court as per provision of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 vide Misc. (N.J.) Case No.8/2006. According to him, he is neither a defaulter nor any arrear of rent is due to him and as such he cannot be evicted from the tenanted premises. With these averments, he prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed with cost. 4. Upon consideration of the respective pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as eight issues including one additional issue and the same are quoted below :- "i) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? ii) Whether the suit is maintainable? iii) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? iv) Whether the suit is properly valued and proper court fee is paid? v) Whether the defendant No.1 is a defaulter and liable to be evicted from the suit premises? vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the claims prayed for? vii) To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled? Additional Issue :- viii) Whether the plaintiff has bona fide required of the suit premises?" 5. In course of trial plaintiff examined three witnesses including himself and exhibited a number of documents. vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the claims prayed for? vii) To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled? Additional Issue :- viii) Whether the plaintiff has bona fide required of the suit premises?" 5. In course of trial plaintiff examined three witnesses including himself and exhibited a number of documents. The defendant No.1 examined two witnesses including himself and exhibited some documents. On 17.12.2008 during pendency of the trial an order was passed by the learned trial court that evidence taken in Title Suit No.53/2006 would be applicable to three other identical cases filed against three different tenants of the same suit premises at four different rooms. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the learned trial court decided Issue Nos.1 to 4 in favour of the plaintiff and thereafter proceeded to decide Issue No.5 as to default. According to the learned trial court, the defendant failed to establish that monthly rent was Rs.1000/- and not Rs.1500/- and so the contention of the plaintiff in regard thereto is to be accepted. The learned trial court accordingly held that monthly rental was Rs.1500/- and thereafter held that the defendant No.1 was duty-bound to prove regular payment of rent by adducing positive evidence. As the defendant failed to show the same and that no rent deposit case was called for the learned trial court decided the issue of default in favour of the plaintiff and held the defendant No.1 as defaulter and liable to be evicted from the tenanted premises. 6. Coming to the issue of bona fide requirement vide Issue No.8 the findings of the learned trial court was that the suit house was in dilapidated condition for which the plaintiff had already obtained permission from the concerned authority for re-construction/renovation and the same was proved vide Ext-7. The learned trial court also noted that DW 1 had admitted in course of cross-examination that the suit house is down to the road and hence there is possibility of rain water entering into the house during rainy season and so the house required renovation/reconstruction. Having considered the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 the learned trial court was of the view that the plaintiff has been residing at a rented house and so he desired to be accommodated in the suit house after renovation/reconstruction. Accordingly, Issue No.8 as to bona fide requirement was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Having considered the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 the learned trial court was of the view that the plaintiff has been residing at a rented house and so he desired to be accommodated in the suit house after renovation/reconstruction. Accordingly, Issue No.8 as to bona fide requirement was decided in favour of the plaintiff. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed in entirety by the learned trial court not only for realisation of arrear rent to the extent of Rs.36000/- but also for eviction of the defendant No.1 from the suit premises by judgment and decree dated 21.07.2010. 7. The defendant No.1 being tenant preferred Title Appeal No.8/2010 in the court of learned Civil Judge at Nalbari challenging the aforesaid judgment and decree of the learned trial court. The learned First Appellate Court considered the submissions of both sides and thereafter passed the impugned judgment and decree dated 20.09.2011 holding that the plaintiff could not prove default in payment of rent and that the house was not required bona fide by the plaintiff as the plaintiff could not prove to the hilt that he is the owner and possessor of the suit premises. This appellate judgment and decree reversing the trial court decree has been called in question in the present revision petition. 8. I have heard Mr. M. Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J. Sharma, learned counsel for the opposite party. I have perused the materials annexed to the revision petition to understand the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 9. The question arises in the present case is as to whether the learned First Appellate Court committed error in reversing the findings of the learned trial court, insofar as the issue of default and bona fide requirement is concerned, are correct. The plaintiff stated in his plaint that defendant No.1 became a tenant with respect to the suit premises which is one of the four rooms of an Assam Type house standing on the plot of land originally owned and possessed by the father of the plaintiff and the proforma defendants. According to the plaintiff, the monthly rental was Rs.1500/- and the defendant No.1 did not make payment of rent since June, 2006. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the suit house is in dilapidated condition which needs immediate renovation/reconstruction for his personal use and occupation. According to the plaintiff, the monthly rental was Rs.1500/- and the defendant No.1 did not make payment of rent since June, 2006. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the suit house is in dilapidated condition which needs immediate renovation/reconstruction for his personal use and occupation. He was a Government employee so long and now after retirement he is required to be accommodated in the suit premises. In support of his contention he produced PW 1 (Sri Kailash Deka), who stated on oath that plaintiff has been occupying a part of the ground floor of his building at Gopal Bazar at a monthly rent of Rs.3500/- since 01.10.2007. The plaintiff was working at Kaliabor as a Government employee and he also deposed that plaintiff informed him about non-payment of rent by his own tenant in the suit premises. The defendant cross-examined him but no suggestion was made that the plaintiff was not a tenant under him with respect to the premises mentioned in his examination-in-chief and thus the evidence given by the PW 1 remained unaffected. 10. The plaintiff examined himself as PW 2 and reiterated the pleaded case as made out in the plaint. In addition, he stated that Prasanta Narayan Choudhury, proforma defendant No.4, did never collect rent from the defendant No.1 in any point of time and so the averments made by the defendant No.1 in the written statement as to payment of rent to the said proforma defendant is incorrect. He also proved the gift deed in his favour as Ext-1. Ext-2 is the jamabondi of the land on which the suit house stands and Ext-3 is the assessment certificate given by the municipality in the name of the mother of the plaintiff. Ext-4 is the assessment certificate given in the name of plaintiff in respect of the suit holding. Ext-5 is a tax paying receipt to show that plaintiff has been paying tax to the municipality and Ext-6 series are the land revenue paying receipts. By Ext-7 plaintiff claimed to have obtained permission from the Nalbari Development Authority for construction of a house on the land over which the suit premises stand and Ext-8 is the petition filed in N.J. case instituted by the defendant No.1. By Ext-7 plaintiff claimed to have obtained permission from the Nalbari Development Authority for construction of a house on the land over which the suit premises stand and Ext-8 is the petition filed in N.J. case instituted by the defendant No.1. This exhibit i.e. Ext-8 appears to have been brought on record only to show that the averment made by the defendant No.1 in regard to offer to pay rent to the plaintiff and refusal by him. The application also was used by the plaintiff for the purpose of proving the due date and quantum of rent. Though the defendant No.1 claimed that the monthly rent was Rs.1000/- but plaintiff claimed that it was Rs.1500/-. The plaintiff was thoroughly cross-examined by the defendant No.1 on all points but no question was put to him with regard to the bona fide requirement as to reconstruction and personal use. The cross-examination virtually appears to be ineffective to dislodge the examination-in-chief of the plaintiff as PW 1. 11. The plaintiff examined his brother, Prasanta Narayan Choudhury, as PW 2, who came to the witness box to depose that he did never collect any rent from the defendant No.1 and so the allegation made by the defendant No.1 that he was the real landlord and he was collecting rent till June, 2006 is incorrect. This witness was also cross-examined by the defendant No.1 but no question has been put in regard thereto. He remained firm that he did not collect any rent from the defendant No.1 and he was not the landlord and it is the plaintiff who was the landlord of the suit premises. He further stated that the house is in dilapidated condition and it required immediate reconstruction. He also supported the plaintiff by saying that the plaintiff is a Government employee and does not have a house of his own at Nalbari to stay. He stays in a rented accommodation at Nalbari. All these averments made in the examination-in-chief went unaffected on the face of the cross-examination. The learned trial court, therefore, had no hesitation to accept the averments made in the examination-in-chief of the three witnesses at face value and held that the defendant No.1 having admitted that he was a tenant with respect to the suit premises under PW 3 failed to prove the averment and so he was a defaulter. The learned trial court, therefore, had no hesitation to accept the averments made in the examination-in-chief of the three witnesses at face value and held that the defendant No.1 having admitted that he was a tenant with respect to the suit premises under PW 3 failed to prove the averment and so he was a defaulter. The learned trial court also held that the suit premises was required bona fide by the plaintiff in view of what has been stated in the plaint. 12. The learned First Appellate Court has not considered the findings of the learned trial court in the light of the evidence led. According to the learned First Appellate Court, the plaint has not been properly drafted incorporating necessary material facts like due date and mode of payment of the rent. But as has been pointed out above, the defendant No.1 himself having admitted in paragraph 11 of the written statement that he was a tenant with respect to the suit premises under the father of the plaintiff and that monthly rent was being collected by Prasanta Narayan Choudhury till May, 2006, has not been considered by the learned First Appellate Court. Here is a case where tenancy is admitted. The defendant No.1 wanted the court to believe that after death of Karuna Narayan Choudhury, Prasanta Narayan Choudhury i.e. proforma defendant No.4 became the landlord and he was collecting rent all throughout. This Prasanta Narayan Choudhury was pleaded as proforma defendant by the plaintiff and he has been examined as PW 3. He came to the witness box and said that the suit premises fall in the share of the plaintiff and not in his share and that he did never collect any rent from the defendant No.1 in any point of time. This witness having been cross-examined by the defendant No.1 no attempt has been made to contest the correctness of his deposition in regard to default or bona fide requirement. PW 3 himself said that he did not collect any rent from the defendant No.1 the claim made by the defendant No.1 in paragraph 11 of the written statement fell apart. The learned First Appellate Court failed to notice that the tenant himself had admitted to be a tenant with respect to the suit premises under the father of the plaintiff and then under proforma defendant No.4 at a monthly rental of Rs.1000/-. The learned First Appellate Court failed to notice that the tenant himself had admitted to be a tenant with respect to the suit premises under the father of the plaintiff and then under proforma defendant No.4 at a monthly rental of Rs.1000/-. From the trend of his averments made in this paragraph it is also clear that rent for previous month was offered in the first week of the subsequent month as per English calendar and this is how he wanted to mention in paragraph 11 that all along rent was being collected by the proforma defendant No.4. So even the deficiency in the plaint as to specific pleading of due date and mode of payment has been filled up when the defendant No.1 put up his written statement and sought to make out a specific case of his own. 13. Fact remains that on his own showing defendant No.1 has indicated that the due date was the first week of the next month as per English calendar and he was paying the rent to PW 3 all along by following this mode. Since PW 3 came to the witness box and denied to have received rent from the defendant No.1, burden fell heavily on the defendant No.1 to prove otherwise that he was paying rent. He also claimed that he paid rent by depositing in court under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 and thereafter did not call for any of the N.J. cases. Even during pendency of the suit the tenant is dutybound to make payment of rent either to the landlord or on his refusal to accept, the rent is bound to be deposited in court. In the case of Abdul Matin Choudhury and others v. Nilayananda Dutta Banik, reported in 1997 (II) GLT 590, this Court held that even during appeal or revisional stage if the landlord can make out that rent is not being paid, in that event, a decree of eviction can be passed. In the case of Abdul Matin Choudhury and others v. Nilayananda Dutta Banik, reported in 1997 (II) GLT 590, this Court held that even during appeal or revisional stage if the landlord can make out that rent is not being paid, in that event, a decree of eviction can be passed. Here, in this case, when the defendant No.1 took a plea that he was depositing rent in court for the month of June, 2006 and since thereafter he was also depositing rent since July, 2006, it was the duty of the defendant No.1 to call for those N.J. cases to prove that rent was so deposited within a fortnight of its falling due along with process fee. In the absence of the N.J. cases it cannot be ascertained as to whether process fee was deposited along with rent. So, to prove a valid deposit it is the duty of a tenant to call for the N.J. case. Nothing has been done in the present case and so the defendant No.1 has no evidence to claim that he has been depositing rent in court even after institution of the suit. Section 5(1) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 provides that so long as the tenant pays rent no decree can be passed against him for eviction. Payment of rent is a condition precedent for protection of a tenant under the Act and this not having been established by the defendant No.1 in the present case finding of the learned trial court in regard to Issue No.5 cannot be interfered with. The learned First Appellate Court committed error in not noticing the averments made in paragraph 11 of the written statement and not considering the evidence adduced by PWs 1, 2 and 3 in regard to default and bona fide requirement. 14. The suit premises is one of the four rooms of an Assam Type house. PWs 2 and 3 firmly stated that the house is in dilapidated condition. The learned trial court has noticed the cross-examination of DW 1 wherein he admitted that the floor of the suit premises is much below the road and rain water enters into it rendering it unfit for habitation. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the house is not required for reconstruction. The plaintiff already obtained permission for construction vide Ext-7. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the house is not required for reconstruction. The plaintiff already obtained permission for construction vide Ext-7. The plaintiff was a Government employee and in that event the finding of the learned trial court that finance will not be a problem for the plaintiff cannot be said to be unreasonable or perverse. In that view of the matter the first appellate judgment and decree does not appears to be sustainable in view of the evidence discussed herein above. 15. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court is hereby set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court is hereby affirmed. The revision petition stands allowed. No order as to cost. ---------