JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Heard Sri G.P. Bhowmick, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners assisted by Smt. S. Roy, Advocate and Sri Anirban Das, learned Counsel for the respondents. 2. By filing this revision under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, the petitioners has challenged the first appellate judgment and decree dated 22.01.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati, in Title Appeal No. 96/2013, thereby upholding the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2013 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati in Title Suit No.2/2012, by which the suit of the respondents herein for recovery of arrear rent and ejection of the petitioners herein from the suit premises was allowed. 3. Briefly stated, the case of the parties is that the respondents herein are the landlord of the petitioners in respect of a shop room No. A-6 in the ground floor of the building described in Schedule-A of the plaint. The shop room, which is hereinafter referred to as the suit premises is morefully described in Schedule-B of the plaint. The tenancy for 3 years w.e.f. 01.10.2004 was created by virtue of an agreement dated 01.02.2007. As per the said agreement, the petitioners was required to pay a monthly rent of Rs.1,000/- per English calendar month within tenth day of the succeeding month, in addition to which the petitioners was also required to pay charges for consumption of electricity in the suit premises. The said agreement contained provisions for renewal of term by a fresh agreement and it also provided for increase of rent by 15% after every three years. At the time of taking the suit premises on rent, the petitioners had paid an advance rent of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty thousand only), which was to be adjusted against at the rate of Rs.200/- per month. 4. The term of the agreement expired on 30.09.2007 and the petitioners continued to occupy the suit premises and the tenancy continued upto December, 2009, which the respondents claimed as unauthorized. However, the petitioners paid rent w.e.f. 01.10.2007 at the rate of Rs.1,150/- per month i.e. by increasing the rent by 15%. 4. The term of the agreement expired on 30.09.2007 and the petitioners continued to occupy the suit premises and the tenancy continued upto December, 2009, which the respondents claimed as unauthorized. However, the petitioners paid rent w.e.f. 01.10.2007 at the rate of Rs.1,150/- per month i.e. by increasing the rent by 15%. The respondents claimed that the petitioners had stopped paying rent on and from the month of January, 2010 and, as such, advocate’s notice dated 28.06.2011 was issued by the respondents to the petitioners demanding arrear rent and informing about the requirement of the suit premises for their own use. As the petitioners did not vacate the suit premises and did not pay the arrear rent, the respondents had filed the said suit. By Advocate’s reply dated 15.07.2011, the petitioners had stated that the rent from January, 2010 was adjusted against advance rent. The respondents claimed monthly rent @ Rs.1,150/- per month from 01.01.2010 to 30.09.2010 and at the rate of Rs.1,323/- from 01.10.2010 to 30.11.2011. 5. The petitioners contested the suit by filing written statement and took a plea that the respondents had proposed full adjustment of rent from the advance rent and, as such, monthly rent on and from January, 2010 to March, 2011 was adjusted towards monthly rent. After rent for the month of April, 2011 became due, the petitioners offered monthly rent to the respondents, but on refusal, the same was deposited in Court under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. 6. In course of trial, the below mentioned issues were framed by the learned trial court and in course of trial, the respondents/ plaintiffs examined 3 witnesses and the petitioners/defendants examined two witnesses. The issues framed in the suit are:- 1. Whether the suit is maintainable? 2. Whether the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties? 3. Whether the defendant is a defaulter in the payment of rent? 4. Whether the plaintiff requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for? 6. To what other relief/reliefs, if any, the parties are entitled to? 7. The relevant issues are No.3 and 4. 3. Whether the defendant is a defaulter in the payment of rent? 4. Whether the plaintiff requires the suit premises for his own use and occupation? 5. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs as prayed for? 6. To what other relief/reliefs, if any, the parties are entitled to? 7. The relevant issues are No.3 and 4. The finding of the learned trial court on issue No.3 is that the petitioners are defaulters in payment of rent as the tenants have no authority to suo motu adjust entire advance as rent, contrary to clause contained in the written agreement that Rs.200/- would be adjusted against monthly rent from the advance rent of Rs.40,000/-. Thus, not only such full adjustment was held to be bad, but the learned trial court arrived at a finding that only rent deposit challans were exhibited without calling for the records of Misc. (N.J.) Cases to prove the pre-requisites of taking steps for issuance of notice upon the landlord and the deposit of rent deposit challans in court. Moreover, it was held that the petitioners could not prove that there was any offer for tendering monthly rent to the respondents and, as such, the deposit of rent in court was held to be not legal. Hence, the petitioners were held to be defaulters in paying rent to the respondents from the month of January, 2010. 8. However, the issue No.4 of bona fide requirement of the suit premises was decided in the negative and against the respondents. Accordingly, a decree was passed for ejection of the petitioners from the suit premises with men and goods and for delivery of vacant khas possession to the respondents. As regards arrear rent, the respondents were directed to collect the monthly rent deposited in court and adjust it against arrear rent. The advance money with the respondents was to be adjusted against arrear rent and the balance, if available, was to be returned to the Petitioners. Accordingly, a decree was ordered to be drawn up in the suit. 9. The petitioners challenged the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2013 by filing appeal, which was registered as Title Appeal No. 96/2013. The respondents herein filed their cross objection aggrieved by the finding of the learned trial court as regards bona fide requirement of the suit premises. Accordingly, a decree was ordered to be drawn up in the suit. 9. The petitioners challenged the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2013 by filing appeal, which was registered as Title Appeal No. 96/2013. The respondents herein filed their cross objection aggrieved by the finding of the learned trial court as regards bona fide requirement of the suit premises. By the first appellate judgment and decree dated 22.01.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati, the appeal of the petitioners as well as the cross objection by the respondents was dismissed. It would be pertinent to mention herein that the petitioners had filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure for adducing additional evidence at the appellate stage. However, by the impugned first appellate judgment, the said prayer of the petitioners was rejected, inter-alia, as the Petitioners could not show that despite best efforts the said evidence could not be produced at the first instance. 10. In respect of the issue of defaulter, it was held that as per the written agreement, rent was to be paid within 10th day of succeeding English calendar month and few stray incidents of the landlord accepting rent after due date would not change the agreed mode of tenancy. The learned first appellate also held that there was no evidence as to the date when monthly rent was offered to the respondents but refused. The DW-1 admitted in her cross examination that no document to show rent was deposited in court for the months of August, 2000 to April, 2002. Hence, no illegality was found in the judgment passed by the learned trial court and the decree for ejection of the petitioners was upheld by dismissing the cross objection filed by the respondents. 11. This court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence on record. In the opinion of this court, the matter of issue No.1 whether the suit is maintainable is virtually a non-issue in this case. The tenancy agreement was executed by all the 5 respondents, but although the suit was filed in the name of all the respondents, but one of the landlords i.e. the respondents No.1 had filed the suit for himself respondents No.2 to 5. The tenancy agreement was executed by all the 5 respondents, but although the suit was filed in the name of all the respondents, but one of the landlords i.e. the respondents No.1 had filed the suit for himself respondents No.2 to 5. However, it is no longer res integra that suit by one of the several landlords is maintainable, as such, this is also a non-issue and is not required to be discussed or revisited once again. The remaining issues No. 3, 5 and 6 are the real issues in controversy, which are re-examined again. 12. On the perusal of Ext.A series, it appears that the rent deposit challans for 2 to 3 months were deposited together on several occasions. The monthly rent for June, 2011 and July, 2011 was paid together. Rent for the months of August, 2011 and September, 2011 were deposited together. Rent for December, 2011, January, 2012 and February, 2012 were paid together. Similarly, rent for the months of March, 2012 and April, 2012 were paid together, June, 2012 and July, 2012 were paid together, August, 2012, September, 2012 and October, 2012 as well as November, 2012 and December, 2012 were paid together. It is also noticeable that monthly rent for the month of July, 2011 was paid into State Bank of India on 12.07.2011 i.e. before the rent had become due. Similarly, monthly rent for the month of September, 2011 was also paid on 21.09.2011, i.e. before it fell due. Rent for the month of October, 2011 was deposited in State Bank of India on 25.11.2011, i.e. beyond the time prescribed under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. Similarly, rent for December, 2011 was deposited on 08.02.2012, which is beyond the prescribed time. Rent for February, 2012 was deposited before it fell due. In a similar fashion, the petitioners had become a defaulter for the month of March 2012, June 2012, August 2012, October 2012 and December 2012. Thus, in this case, a presumption can be drawn that had the records of various Misc. (N.J.) Cases been called for during trial, the same would have been unfavourable to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are held to be rank defaulter on scrutinizing the evidence on record. Hence, no infirmity is found in the concurrent finding on defaulter by both the learned courts below. 13. (N.J.) Cases been called for during trial, the same would have been unfavourable to the petitioners. Hence, the petitioners are held to be rank defaulter on scrutinizing the evidence on record. Hence, no infirmity is found in the concurrent finding on defaulter by both the learned courts below. 13. The petitioners are granted 2 (two) months time to vacate the suit premises. On failure to vacate the same within the allotted time, the respondents would be at liberty to execute the decree. 14. This court would have relegated the parties before the executing court for calculating the decreetal sum and interest of 6% as decreed. However, the parties are ad-idem that the said calculation be done by this court to reduce further time for adjudication of the said calculation. Moreover, it appears that the calculation of interest would require arithmetical skill as it is to be calculated in monthly basis as and when the rent for each month would fall due, for which calculation by an expert like a Chartered Accountant is required. Therefore, to avoid calculations, the interest payable by the petitioners to the respondents under the decree is computed on a lump sum basis at Rs.10,000/-. The calculation of dues is made herein below. 15. In this regard, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners has urged that as per the tenancy agreement, the rent was Rs.1,000/- and a sum of Rs.200/- was to be adjusted and as no fresh agreement was drawn up, the arrear rent is required to be calculated @ Rs.1,000/- per month. The said agreement being unregistered, this court cannot take into consideration the clause for 3 yearly enhancement of monthly rent by 15%. He has filed a rough calculation sheet, showing that between the period from April, 2011 to December, 2015 a sum of Rs.71,096/- was deposited as rent in court and as on 01.01.2009, an advance of Rs.27,400/- was lying with respondents. Thus total adjustable amount would be Rs.71,096/- + Rs.27,400/- = Rs.98,496/-. However, rent @ Rs.1,000/- from January, 2010 to March, 2017 (i.e. 87 months) would have been Rs.87,000/- entitling the petitioners a refund of Rs.11,496/- as on 31.03.2017. However, this argument appears to be misapplied because the petitioners have deposited monthly rent @ Rs.1,150/- for the months of April, 2011 and May, 2011 and @ Rs.1,323/- from June, 2011 to December, 2015. However, this argument appears to be misapplied because the petitioners have deposited monthly rent @ Rs.1,150/- for the months of April, 2011 and May, 2011 and @ Rs.1,323/- from June, 2011 to December, 2015. Thus, records otherwise reveal enhancement of monthly rent by 15% after every 3 years and, as such, there is no reason why the respondents should be deprived of the agreed rent after suffering litigation from 2012 to evict the petitioners. However, as the respondents has not applied for enhancement of rent after every three years beyond Rs.1,323/- per month during the pendency of the suit, appeal or this revision, the rent stands frozen @ Rs.1,326/- w.e.f. 01.10.2010. 16. Thus, as per above, the monthly rent, as agreed between the parties are as follows:- Sl. No. Month/year (from) Month/year (To) Monthly rent Total 1. 01.01.2010 30.09.2010 Rs.1,150/- Rs.10,350/- 2. 01.10.2010 30.09.2013 Rs.1,323/- Rs.47,628/- 3. 01.10.2013 30.09.2016 Rs.1,323/- Rs.47,628/- 4. 01.10.2016 31.03.2017 Rs.1,323/- Rs.7,938/- 5. Total rent Rs.1,13,544/- 6. Less: Advance As on 01.01.2010 Rs.27,400/- 7. Less: rent paid in court as on 31.12.2015 Rs.71,096/- 8. Total sum recoverable as on 31.03.2017 (col.5-6-7) Rs.15,048/- 9. Add: 2 month’s rent For time to vacate Rent upto 31.05.2017 @ Rs.1,323/- Rs.2,626/- 10. Total rent: as on 31.05.2017 (Col. 8+9) Rs.17,674/- 11. Interest as decreed by the Learned Trial Court @ 6% Lump sum basis Rs.10,000/- 12. Total: (Col. 10+11) Rs.27,674/- 17. As a result, the first appellate judgment and decree dated 22.01.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.2, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati, in Title Appeal No. 96/2013, as well as the judgment and decree dated 21.05.2013 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Kamrup (Metropolitan), Guwahati, in Title Suit No.2/2012 are both upheld. The arrear rent and interest is quantified at Rs.27,674/- as on 31.05.2017, as indicated above. If the petitioners do not vacate the suit premises by 31.05.2017, they would be liable to pay compensation to the respondents at the rate of Rs.100/- per diem till evicted by due process of law.