JUDGMENT : 1. This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been preferred challenging the concurrent findings of the learned two courts below whereby the eviction of the present petitioners was decreed. Both the courts held that the tenant is a defaulter. 2. Bhupen Singh Kuthari, the predecessor of the present opposite parties, as plaintiff instituted Title Suit No.171/1994 against Chiranjilal Sarma, the predecessor of the present petitioners, praying for a decree of ejectment and for realization of arrear rent along with compensation. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had been in occupation of the shop room at a monthly rental of Rs.125/- according to English calendar month and year. The tenancy was created verbally and the tenant had agreed to vacate the premises as and when asked for. The suit room is actually a passage meant for ingress and egress of the plaintiff but as the tenant did not agree to vacate the plaintiff became compelled to make use of another passage belonging to Smti. Prasanna Kumari Kuthari on payment of monthly rent of Rs.125/-. Moreover, the defendant failed to tender rent to the plaintiff since April, 1982 and thus became a defaulter. Under such circumstances, the plaintiff served notice to the defendant through his counsel on 21.07.1993 asking him to vacate the premises, however, to no avail. The plaintiff, thereafter, served yet another notice on 24.02.1994 through his advocate terminating tenancy of the defendant and asked him to vacate the suit premises after expiry of 31.03.1994. The tenant did not comply with the demand and accordingly the suit was instituted for recovery of khas possession by evicting the defendant and also for realization of arrear rent from May, 1991 and April, 1994 along with compensation etc. 3. On being summoned the sole defendant appeared and submitted written statement. While denying all the averments made in the plaint the defendant stated that he paid rent regularly to the plaintiff and had obtained receipts thereof. But the rent for the month of March, 1982 was tendered to the plaintiff who refused to accept the same and as such the defendant deposited the rent as required under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) within the stipulated period with process fee after observing all the legal formalities. The defendant has been regularly depositing rent in Court since then performing all the formalities and so he is not a defaulter. The defendant also denied the averments in regard to bonafide requirement of the plaintiff and prayed that the suit be dismissed with compensatory cost under Section 35A of the Code. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed as many as seven issues and the same are quoted below :- “1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 2. Whether there is a cause of action for the suit? 3. Whether the defendant is a defaulter as alleged by the plaintiff? 4. Whether the suit premises is bonafide required by the plaintiff? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get Rs.4,500/- from the defendant as arrear rent? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for? 7. To what relief/reliefs, if any, parties are entitled?” 5. Both sides examined one witness each and exhibited documents in support of their respective claim. During the course of the trial the original plaintiff died and thereupon his legal heirs were impleaded as the plaintiffs. One Subodh Singh Kuthari being son of the original plaintiff was examined as PW 1. He stated the pleaded facts in his examination-in-chief in the form of affidavit and thereupon he was duly cross-examined by the defendant. The defendant having been died during the pendency of the suit his son Shyam Sundar Sharma was impleaded by way of substitution and he examined himself as DW 1. He also relied on the statement made by him in the line of the pleadings made and he was duly cross-examined by the plaintiff. On the basis of the depositions and the exhibits adduced by the parties the learned trial court decided Issue Nos.3 and 5 in favour of the plaintiff holding that the defendant was a defaulter. This observation was made after holding that challan for deposit of rent of March, 1982 was a mere photocopy and that DW 1 failed to produce challan for rent deposit of July, 2000. This observation was made after holding that challan for deposit of rent of March, 1982 was a mere photocopy and that DW 1 failed to produce challan for rent deposit of July, 2000. Relying in the case of Abdul Matin Choudhury and others vs. Nilayananda Dutta Banik, reported in 1997 (II) GLT 590, the learned the learned trial Court was of the view that since the defendant committed default for one month he was always a defaulter and accordingly both the issues were decided. The learned trial Court, however, did not find favour with the issue of bonafide requirement raised by the plaintiff and accordingly decided this issue in the negative but having found that the defendant was a defaulter the learned trial court passed his judgment and decree dated 26.04.2005 for eviction of the defendant along with arrear rent. 6. Aggrieved, the substituted defendants preferred Title Appeal before the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup at Guwahati and the same was numbered as Title Appeal No.27/2005. The learned First Appellate Court after considering the respective cases of both sides framed as many as three points for determination as follows :- “1. Whether the learned court below mis-appreciated the evidence on record and misconstrued the law while deciding the issue No.3 and 5 and came to an erroneous finding that the defendant is defaulter in respect of rent of the suit premises and entitled to arrear rent? 2. Whether the learned court below misconstrued the law and facts in deciding the issue No.4? 3. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court could be sustained in law as well as in fact?” Out of the aforesaid three points, Point No.1 is the crux of the appeal which is in regard to default and entitlement of arrear rent. 3. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court could be sustained in law as well as in fact?” Out of the aforesaid three points, Point No.1 is the crux of the appeal which is in regard to default and entitlement of arrear rent. The learned First Appellate Court held that the defendant having claimed to have deposited rent in court in terms of Section 5(4) of the Act and having taking the plea that adequate process fee was also paid but thereafter did not take any steps to call for records to show that process fee was paid or that the rent was deposited in accordance with the provision of Section 5(4) of the Act and thus relying on the case of Rup Chand Daftary vs. Ashim Ranjan Modak reported in 2000(2) GLT 75 the learned First Appellate Court upheld the finding as to default of the tenant and dismissed the appeal. The learned First Appellate Court even thereafter decided Point No.2 in the absence of any cross-objection or cross-appeal filed by the plaintiff and held that the plaintiff required the suit premises bonafide. It is to be noted that the learned trial Court had decided issue of bonafide requirement in the negative and thereafter the plaintiff did neither challenge that finding by filing a separate appeal nor did they filed any cross-objection under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Under such circumstances, the learned First Appellate Court did not have any occasion to decide the issue of bonafide requirement suo motu. 7. I have heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. L. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the respondents although names of the learned counsel have been duly shown in the cause list. I have perused the lower Court records including the exhibits and the depositions of the witnesses. 8. Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned senior counsel, would argue that the photocopy of challan for deposit of rent filed in the month of May, 1982 was brought on record by the defendant and the suit having been instituted in the year 1994 after 12 years the defendant had sufficient reason for not producing the original challan. 8. Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned senior counsel, would argue that the photocopy of challan for deposit of rent filed in the month of May, 1982 was brought on record by the defendant and the suit having been instituted in the year 1994 after 12 years the defendant had sufficient reason for not producing the original challan. He further submits that plaintiff did never make any allegation in the plaint that process fee was not paid by the defendant while depositing rent in Court and no allegation was made that the deposits so made are not in terms of Section 5(4) of the Act and so there was no occasion for the defendant to call for all the records since May, 1982 till the date of deposition to establish that rents were duly deposited along with process fee. He argues that the learned First Appellate Court committed error in entertaining argument of bonafide requirement put forward by the plaintiff when no cross-appeal was preferred by the plaintiff or no application was filed under Order XLI Rule 22 of the CPC. 9. I have given anxious consideration to the argument put forward by Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned senior counsel. The deposit of rent is made under Section 5(4) of the Act. It is a benefit given to a tenant to avoid a decree on the ground of default. If in a given case landlord refuses to accept rent on being tendered, the tenant is at liberty to make the deposit rent in Court within a fortnight of its falling due along with process fee. If such a deposit is made, in that event, no decree for eviction can be passed against the tenant on the ground of non-payment of rent. A tenant for getting benefit under this Section, therefore, has to satisfy the following ingredients :- (i) He has offered rent to the landlord on or before due date; (ii) In case the landlord refuses to accept rent on being offered, the tenant is to make deposit in court within a fortnight of its falling due; and (iii) Such deposit has to be made along with process fee so as to issue notice upon the landlord. If any of these ingredients are missing, in that event, deposit will not be a valid deposit. If any of these ingredients are missing, in that event, deposit will not be a valid deposit. In view of the preponderant judicial pronouncements made by this Court in a number of cases which have received approval of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on a number of occasions the aforesaid ingredients are required to be fulfilled by the defendant and in case he fails to discharge his burden, in that event, he cannot avoid a decree of eviction on the ground of default. These ingredients can be established only if the concerned rent deposit case records are called for and exhibited. The rent deposit case records would reveal the date on which deposit was made, whether a tenant had taken steps for issuance of notice upon the landlord by making deposit of process fee and whether the rent deposit case had been dismissed for default. This is because it has already been held by this Court that even if a rent deposit case is dismissed for default that would amount to non-deposit of rent and the deposit so made will be invalid. This is why it is always required on the part of the tenant in an eviction suit to call for the relevant rent deposit case and to exhibit the same for discharging the burden. 10. In the instant case apart from tendering a photocopy of challan for the rent deposit case of the month of May, 1982 and original challans of the subsequent period the defendant did not take further step to prove that the deposits were valid. There is no material on record to arrive at the finding that the defendant had made deposit of process fee along with rent in full. The plaintiff not having received any notice in the case could not have made any mention about pendency or institution of the rent deposit case. Plaintiff instituted the suit for eviction along with realization of arrear rent for last three years, obviously in view of bar of limitation. Claim of arrear rents for preceding three years goes to indicate that plaintiff did not get rents for this period and thus there was no question on the part of the plaintiff to make any allegation that the rent deposits were not made in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(4) of the Act. Claim of arrear rents for preceding three years goes to indicate that plaintiff did not get rents for this period and thus there was no question on the part of the plaintiff to make any allegation that the rent deposits were not made in accordance with the provisions of Section 5(4) of the Act. Rather, non-service of notice on the landlord in cases under Section 5(4) of the Act goes to indicate that there is possibility of non-deposit of process fee or non-taking of steps for issuance of notice by the tenant after deposit of rent in court. So, to wipe out all such possibilities the defendant was duty bound to call for the rent deposit cases and to establish that the rent deposits were made within a fortnight of its falling due along with process fee and that steps were taken for issuance of notice upon the landlord. The learned First Appellate Court has noticed these shortcomings and has accordingly held that the defendant failed to discharge burden of establishing valid deposit under Section 5(4) of the Act. Though Mr. S. S. Sharma, learned senior counsel, has strenuously urged that such finding of the learned First Appellate Court is perverse but having gone through the evidence I did not find any of these rent deposit cases were called for by the defendant or were attempted to be exhibited so as to prove valid deposit under Section 5(4) of the Act. The findings of the learned First Appellate Court, therefore, that deposits made by the defendant were not valid deposit in terms of Section 5(4) of the Act is neither perverse nor incorrect. Both the Courts have concurrently held that the tenant is a defaulter. Having perused the evidence of the parties I could not find out any reason to differ from the same concurrent findings. The findings are neither perverse nor unreasonable. Having so found the concurrent findings are required to be upheld and accordingly the same are upheld. 11. The Revision Petition consequently stands dismissed. No order as to cost. Interim order passed earlier stands automatically vacated. Send down the Lower Court records.