JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Mr. L R Mazumder, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. R Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent. 1. The present petitioner is the tenant/defendant in Title Suit No.5/2008 in the Court of learned Munsiff No.1, Cachar at Silchar. It is the case of the landlord/plaintiff that the defendant/petitioner is the monthly tenant since the time of his predecessor in interest. The plaintiff/respondent purchased the suit property along with other landed properties from his brother, Sri Pankaj Paul by way of registered sale deed No. 1406/2007 dated 02.04.2007 on valuable consideration. The vendor of the plaintiff/respondent, Sri Pankaj Paul under whom the defendant/petitioner was the tenant prior to the sale of the suit premises, filed Title Suit No.120/2000 before the then Civil Judge, Junior Division No.1, Silchar for ejectment of the defendant/petitioner. The said suit was compromised on the basis of the compromise petition on 24.07.2012 and the terms of the compromise formed the part of the decree. As per the terms of the compromise decree, the defendant/petitioner is a monthly tenant under Sri Pankaj Paul. The monthly rent being Rs.700/- payable within 7th day of the following English calendar month. As per the said compromise decree, the said Pankaj Paul constructed the RCC building and let out a new room to the defendant/petitioner on 01.07.2002. The said Sri Pankaj Paul on 03.01.2007 received rent from January, 2007 to June, 2007 per month and granted receipt thereof and in the receipt it was mentioned that the rent would be enhanced from July, 2007 @ 10 per cent for the next five years. The mode of payment of rent is month to month basis. The plaintiff/respondent purchased the suit premises along with land and as per pleading the said change in Title subsequent to the purchase was informed to the defendant/petitioner with a request to attorn him as the landlord and pay the monthly rent to him. However, the defendant/petitioner failed to attorn the plaintiff/respondent and also failed to pay the monthly rent w.e.f. July 2007. Later on, the plaintiff/respondent came to know that the defendant/petitioner deposited rent for the month of July, 2007 to December, 2007 @ Rs.700/- per month in the Court. The said rent was deposited in the name of Sri Pankaj Paul and the plaintiff/respondent jointly on 23.07.2007 without offering the same to the plaintiff/respondent. Later on, the plaintiff/respondent came to know that the defendant/petitioner deposited rent for the month of July, 2007 to December, 2007 @ Rs.700/- per month in the Court. The said rent was deposited in the name of Sri Pankaj Paul and the plaintiff/respondent jointly on 23.07.2007 without offering the same to the plaintiff/respondent. They offered the same to the plaintiff/respondent. In the petition filed under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 in Misc(RC) Case No. 384/2007, the defendant/petitioner stated that he learnt about the transfer of the suit premises to the plaintiff/respondent in the 3rd week of July, 2007. Pleading that the said deposit of rent in the court is not at all a valid deposit without any offer being made to the plaintiff/respondent and also as the rent for the subsequent months were paid in advance and that too in the names of two persons, the plaintiff/respondent preferred the suit for ejectment of the defendant/petitioner on the ground of defaulter and also on bonafide requirement of the suit premises. 2. The defendant/petitioner contested the suit by filing his written statement. Denying the allegations made in the plaint, the defendant/petitioner admitted deposit of rent in the court from July, 2007 to December, 2007 through Misc(RC) Case No. 384/2007. With regard to the knowledge of the transfer of ownership of the suit premises and the offer of the rent, the petitioner/defendant pleaded that the rent was offered to both Pankaj Paul and the plaintiff/respondent before the deposit. Further, denying the genuineness of the ground of bonafide requirement, the defendant/petitioner prayed for dismissal of the suit. In para-21 of the written statement the defendant/petitioner pleaded about his knowledge of transfer of the suit premises by Sri Pankaj Paul to the present plaintiff/respondent. After the deposit of the rent from July, 2007 to December, 2007, it is pleaded that the defendant/petitioner offered the rent in January, 2008 on the 4th Day of February, 2008 along with the advance rent from February to December, 2008 for quantum @Rs.700/- per month. Thus, the defendant/petitioner prayed for dismissal of the suit as he is not a defaulter. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: “(i) Is there is any cause of action? (ii) Whether the suit is maintainable? (iii) Whether the suit is bad for waiver, estoppels & acquiescence. Thus, the defendant/petitioner prayed for dismissal of the suit as he is not a defaulter. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues: “(i) Is there is any cause of action? (ii) Whether the suit is maintainable? (iii) Whether the suit is bad for waiver, estoppels & acquiescence. (iv) Whether the defendant is a defaulter. (v) Whether the defendant is liable to be evicted from the suit-house. (vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the arrear of rent as prayed for. (vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of permanent injunction as prayed for. (viii) Any other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to. (ix) Whether the defendant caused any nuisance so as to be liable to be evicted from the suit-house. (x) Whether the plaintiff requires the suit-house bona fide.” 3. The trial court taking up the issue No.4, came to the finding that the defendant/petitioner is a defaulter. While discussing the said issue the learned trial court examined the evidence of the defendant/petitioner as DW-1 and found that he was informed of the aforesaid transfer of ownership and further deposed that he was aware before depositing the rent in the court that the plaintiff/respondent was the sole owner of the suit premises. Even then he deposited the rent in the name of two persons including the plaintiff/respondent. With regard to the tender of rent to the plaintiff/respondent in his cross-examination, the DW-1 failed to depose the date on which he made such tender of rent. The DW-2, another witness deposed in his cross that he could not say the date of such offer of rent to the plaintiff/respondent. Considering the defendant/petitioner as the monthly tenant in respect of the suit premises, the deposit of rent in the court for entire period from July, 2007 to December, 2007 at a time, the trial court came to the finding that such deposit is not as per the stipulations under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. Finally, the trial court decided the said issue No. 4 against the defendant/petitioner thereby holding him to be a defaulter. The issue No.9 i.e. with respect to the claim of bonafide requirements of the plaintiff/respondent, same was decided in the affirmative in favour of plaintiff/respondent. Finally, the trial court decided the said issue No. 4 against the defendant/petitioner thereby holding him to be a defaulter. The issue No.9 i.e. with respect to the claim of bonafide requirements of the plaintiff/respondent, same was decided in the affirmative in favour of plaintiff/respondent. The trial court vide judgment and decree dated 30.04.2012, decreed the suit for ejectment of the defendant/petitioner from the suit premises. 4. The defendant/petitioner being aggrieved preferred Title Appeal No.28/2012 in the court of learned Civil Judge No.1, Cachar, Silchar. The said Title Appeal also was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 21.05.2013. The First Appellate Court took up the issue No.4 and discussed the material evidence on record upholding the findings of the trial court. The First Appellate Court came to the finding that as there was no valid tender to the plaintiff/respondent, and the rent was deposited in the names of two persons such deposit of rent in the court cannot protect the defendant from becoming a defaulter. The First Appellate Court, thus, dismissed the appeal and thereafter the defendant/petitioner has filed this revision application challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2013 passed in Title Appeal No.28/2012. 5. Mr. Mazumdar submits that admittedly practice of payment of monthly rent on the 7th day of the following English calendar month, was changed by the act of the parties inasmuch as Sri Pankaj Paul, the vendor of the plaintiff/respondent received the rent for the month of January, 2007 till June, 2007 at a time. In such situation, keeping in view the mode of payment of rent a duty was cast upon the courts below at least to give a finding with respect to the date of rent falling due. Having not done so, the court ought not to have held the payment of rent in the court for the period of July, 2007 to December, 2007 as non compliance of the provisions under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. Mr. Mazumdar further submits that the deposit of the rent in the court in the name of two persons including the plaintiff/respondent cannot be held to be illegal inasmuch as after the deposit of the rent in the court, the plaintiff/respondent had withdrawn the same. Mr. Mazumdar further submits that the deposit of the rent in the court in the name of two persons including the plaintiff/respondent cannot be held to be illegal inasmuch as after the deposit of the rent in the court, the plaintiff/respondent had withdrawn the same. It is further submitted that the rent so deposited in the name of Pankaj Paul, the vendor of the plaintiff/respondent including the name of the plaintiff was purely as an abundant caution, inasmuch as both the plaintiff and his vendor being brothers laid a trap to brand the defendant/petitioner as a defaulter. Submitting such, Mr. Mazumdar sought for intervention of the impugned judgment and decree. 6. Ms. Jain vehemently opposed the submission of Mr. Mazumdar and submits that deposit of rent in the court must be in strict compliance of the provisions stipulated under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. The deposit of advance rent before the same falling due, amounts to payment of the same in the court without tendering the same to the landlord. Deposit of rent in the names of the two persons is itself barred by law as such Ms. Jain submits that there is no scope of inteference in the impugned judgment and decree. 7. Considered the submission of both the learned counsels. Admittedly, the defendant/petitioner is a monthly tenant and in such a situation, this Court will consider that the monthly rent becomes due on the last date of the month. The parties to the tenancy agreed that the rent shall be paid within 7th day of the following English calendar month. The submission of Mr. Mazumdar that there was change in mode of payment of the rent cannot be considered inasmuch as if the compromise decree is taken into consideration and the averment made in the pleadings, it is an admitted position that the tenancy is a month to month basis. The mode of deposit in the court itself goes to show that there was no tender to the landlord before depositing the rent in the court. Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 specifically mandates that when the landlord refuses to accept the monthly rent offered by the tenant then only a tenant may within the fortnight of its becoming due deposit in the court. Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 specifically mandates that when the landlord refuses to accept the monthly rent offered by the tenant then only a tenant may within the fortnight of its becoming due deposit in the court. The opening language of the said provision itself shows that there must be refusal for acceptance of the rent by the landlord offered by the tenant. In the present case in hand, admittedly the defendant/petitioner had deposited rent in advance prior to the date of falling due of the same. This goes to show that rent for the months deposited in advance was deposited without offering the same to the landlord. Such deposit of rent in advance does not fulfill the criteria as specified under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. Both the courts below discussed the provisions of the law and finally came to the concurrent findings that the rent so deposited in the Court is not valid and accordingly held the defendant/petitioner to be a defaulter. The scope of this Court as the revisional court, invoking the jurisdiction under Section 115 of the CPC is very much limited moreso when the findings are concurrent in nature. Even then, this Court had not found any irregularity and/or perversity for interfering with the findings of the court below. Accordingly, this revision petition is dismissed on contest. However, Ms. Jain, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiff/respondent fairly submits that the defendant/petitioner is given a period of six months time from today to vacate the suit premises which Mr. Mazumdar accepts. 8. Accordingly this revision petition is disposed of.