JUDGMENT : The concurrent findings of the learned two courts below holding the tenant defaulter have been called in question in the present revision petition by the tenant. The sole opposite party as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.17 of 1994 in the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div) No.1 at Tinsukia setting up a case that pursuant to a registered agreement No. 2040 of 1988 dated 21.12.1988, the defendant became a tenant with respect to the suit premises under the plaintiff on condition to pay Rs.200/- as monthly rent within seven days of the next month as per English Calendar. The defendant also admitted to vacate the suit premises on 30.4.1991. But the defendant not only failed to vacate the premises but also started depositing rent in court since May/June, 1991 illegally and thus they became liable for being evicted from the suit premises. It was also alleged that defendant collected materials for making pucca construction on 28.5.1994 thereby violating the terms of the tenancy. The plaintiff prayed not only for a decree of ejectment against the defendant but also for realization of Rs.10,950/- towards compensation. The suit premises consist of two rooms, one of which measures 10ft X 12ft and the other measures 12ft x 10ft alongwith one kitchen measuring 10ft X 12ft and a latrine etc. 2. On being summoned, defendant appeared and submitted written statement countering the case pleaded by the plaintiff. However, in paragraph -12 of the written statement, the defendant specifically pleaded that the plaintiff refused to accept the rent for the month of May and June, 1991 when offered to him and so the defendant was compelled to deposit the same in the court under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 and thus he was not a defaulter and not liable to be evicted. He also denied any liability to make payment of compensation as claimed by the plaintiff. 3. Upon consideration of the aforesaid rival contention of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following ten issues and put the parties to prove their respective cases: (i) Whether the suit is maintainable? (ii) Whether there is any cause of action to the suit? (iii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? (iv) Whether the defendant is authorized to make construction of the suit house as per written order of the landlord? (ii) Whether there is any cause of action to the suit? (iii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? (iv) Whether the defendant is authorized to make construction of the suit house as per written order of the landlord? (v) Whether defendant agreed to vacate the suit house and deliver the possession to the plaintiff after expiry of 30/4/1991? (vi) Whether defendant unauthorizedly occupied the suit house after expiry of 30.4.1991? (vii) Whether rent of house is payable within the first week of succeeding month by the defendant? (viii) Whether defendant is a defaulter on respect of payment of rent of the suit house? (ix) Whether plaintiff is entitled for a decree as prayed for? (x) To what relief /reliefs the parties are entitled to? 4. Plaintiff examined two witnesses including his daughter as PW-1 and tendered 14 documents. The defendant examined himself as DW-1 and produced 78 documents in evidence. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the learned trial court decided Issue No.8 as to default in favour of the plaintiff, holding, inter-alia, that the defendant failed to prove offering of rent and subsequent refusal by the landlord before the alleged deposits in court. The defendant also did not call for relevant records to show that rents were being paid under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. Holding so other issues were also decided in favour of the plaintiff and consequently a decree for eviction of the defendant was also passed along with decree for realization of rent @ Rs.200/- for the month of May/June, 1991 etc. This Trial court judgment and decree dated 9.4.2009 was challenged by the defendant tenant before the learned first appellate court in Title Appeal No. 7 of 2009 and the learned first appellate court by his judgment and decree dated 29.11.2011 dismissed the appeal upholding the findings of the learned trial court. The learned first appellate court has re-decided the issues and coming to Issue No.8 as to alleged default of the tenant, held that there is no cogent evidence on record to show that rent was tendered to the landlord/plaintiff. It was also observed that defendant did not produce case record or any challan to show that rent was deposited in the court for the months of May and June together. It was also observed that defendant did not produce case record or any challan to show that rent was deposited in the court for the months of May and June together. Considering the evidence led by both the sides, the learned first appellate court did not find any error in the findings of the learned trial court in so far as Issue No.8 which is the crux of all the issues. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. 6. These two judgments have been called in question in the present revision petition by the defendant/tenant. 7. I have heard Mr. BD Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T Baruah, learned counsel for the opposite party. I have also perused the LCR to see the correctness of findings of the learned courts below in regard to Issue No.8. 8. Mr. BD Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the suit for eviction was basically prepared on the proposition that the tenant was supposed to vacate the suit premises on 30.4.1991 and that they had defaulted in payment of rent on the earlier period. The suit has not been instituted for any default for the subsequent period and so in the absence of specific pleadings as to default for particular period and or invalidity of the deposit made, learned courts below committed error in holding the tenant a defaulter. 9. Per contra, Mr. T Baruah, learned counsel for the opposite party would argue that the defendant/tenant himself having taken specific plea in paragraph-12 of the written statement that rents were tendered to the plaintiff/ landlord for the month of May and June, 1991 and on refusal to accept the rent, the same was deposited with the court by complying with the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. Such a stand having been taken by the defendant himself, burden lies on him to prove that such averments are correct. The defendant failed to produce any evidence in support of such claim. He has not examined any witnesses to show that rent was really offered to the landlord and there was a refusal by the landlord. Such a stand having been taken by the defendant himself, burden lies on him to prove that such averments are correct. The defendant failed to produce any evidence in support of such claim. He has not examined any witnesses to show that rent was really offered to the landlord and there was a refusal by the landlord. In the absence of these two essential ingredients of Section -5( 4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, the learned courts below did not commit any error in holding that deposits were not valid deposits and so decree for eviction of the defendant is not assailable. 10. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the materials available on record, it appears that the crux of the issues between the parties is whether the present petitioner is a defaulter within the meaning of Section 5 of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 and if so whether he is liable to be evicted. Plaintiff has stated full facts as to origin of tenancy and the subsequent execution of registered agreement of tenancy. Since it was a tenancy for more than 11 months, it was duly registered with the jurisdictional Sub-Registry. This agreement has been exhibited as Exhibit-5 in original. Clause-4 of the agreement recites that tenant shall pay Rs. 200/- per month as rent for the suit premises and the same shall be payable within the first week of the subsequent month. This being the term of a registered document is admissible in evidence and once it is taken into consideration, it is established that there is landlord and tenant relationship between the parties, that the agreed rent was Rs.200/- per month, that the rent was payable within the first week of the next month as per English calendar and that tenant also agreed to pay arrear rent @ Rs.100/- per month till December, 1998. Now, when the essential ingredients of tenancy like quantum of rent, the due date and the mode of payment have been established by the landlord and an allegation has been made that defendant became defaulter and his deposits made in the court are bad in law, it becomes necessary to see as to whether such pleadings have been proved. The job of the plaintiff has been made easier by the defendant by filing written statement. The job of the plaintiff has been made easier by the defendant by filing written statement. In paragraph-12 of the written statement, the defendant came forward with a specific plea that rents were being deposited in court in terms of the provision of Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 on being refused by the landlord after the same was tendered to him. By making such specific averments in paragraph 12 the defendant bound himself to establish these facts by leading cogent evidence. The defendant thereafter failed to call for the relevant rent deposit cases and to lead evidence that rent deposited in the court was tendered to the landlord and that landlord had refused to accept the same. Under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 deposits made by a tenant with the court would be valid only if it is preceded by offer to the landlord and there is a corresponding refusal by the landlord to accept the same. Once rent is offered to the landlord and he refuses to accept the same, thereafter the tenant is entitled to make deposit with the court within a fortnight of its falling due along with process fee. If any of these ingriedients are missing than the deposit will become invalid. This is why when a defendant takes a plea that deposits are being made under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, defendant has to plead and establish all these ingredients. He is required to prove offer, refusal and then to call for the records to show that along with the rent, process fee was also paid for issuance of notice upon the landlord. This is why calling of the record of the rent deposit cases is so essential in a suit under Section (4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. 11. In the case is hand, the defendant miserably failed to call for those cases and so there is nothing on record to come to a finding that rents were deposited in court after landlord had refused to accept on being offered, that rents were deposited within a fortnight of is falling due and that there was deposit of process fee along with the rents. The learned courts below having concurrently held that defendants failed to accept the rent on being offered and having gone through the evidence led by the parties, I do not find any perversity in such findings . That being the position, concurrent findings of the learned courts below in regard to default cannot be interfered with. 12. At this stage, Mr. BD Deka, learned counsel for the petitioner would point out that till the eviction is made, the petitioner continues to remain a tenant and so he is not liable to make payment of any compensation whatsoever. This aspect of the matter according to Mr. BD Deka was not considered by the learned courts below. 13. A tenant under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 is a statutory tenant and so until and unless a decree of eviction is passed by competent court till then he continues to remain a tenant. The relationship between the landlord and the tenant being a contractual one under the statute until and unless the tenant is evicted by a decree passed by a competent civil court, there is no question of making any payment of compensation whatsoever. Till the decree is passed by a competent civil court or an appeal/ revision preferred there against is dismissed, the tenant cannot be said to be a trespasser with respect to the suit premises and this is why there is no question of payment of any compensation at all. What the landlord would be entitled to get is the arrear of rent for the whole period, the tenant defaulted and not for any compensation. That part of the impugned judgment is accordingly stands modified.