JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. G. P. Bhowmick learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. M. Kalita learned counsel for the petitioners and also heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla learned Senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 18 to 28. 2. The present petitioners are plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 8/1999 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Barpeta which was filed against 30 nos. of defendants seeking (a) for the plaintiff’s tenancy right and they are not evictable from the commercial suit premises (b) plaintiff’s right, title and interest and possession and (c) for confirmation of possession for permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs restraining the defendants permanently from selling the suit premises etc (d) for the cost of the suit. The suit premises consists of a plot of land measuring 1 katha 5 lechas out of 2 kathas 10 lechas covered by periodic patta No. 74/469 of dag No. 707 situated at Barpeta Road Town under Mauza Gobardhana over which two C. I. Sheet houses with latrine and pucca well are standing with defined boundaries. One late Birendra Kumar Roy was the original owner of the said land measuring 1 katha 5 lechas and late Jogesh Chandra Saha, the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs petitioners took on lease the said land and started his business thereon. The rent was fixed at Rs. 1051/-per month of the suit premises. Jogesh Chandra Saha died in the year 1982 and on his death his legal heirs inherited the tenancy over the suit premises which is a commercial one. Said Birendra Kumar Roy died living behind three sons Naresh Roy, Kamakhya Roy and Ramesh Roy alongwith three daughters Hena Roy, Maloti Roy and Bula Roy. On the date of filing the suit i.e. on 3.5.2001 Kamakhya Roy died leaving behind his legal heirs the defendants respondents No. 2 to 7. Romesh Roy also died prior to filing of the suit leaving behind his legal heirs, the defendants respondents No. 8 to 14. The defendants respondents No. 15, 16 and 17 are the daughters of late Birendra Kumar Roy. After filing of the suit the names of the defendants respondents No. 7, 13, 15,16,17,29 and 30 were struck off at the first appellate stage. It is pertinent to mention that the defendants respondents No. 29 and 30 are the legal heirs of Birendra Kumar Roy. 3. After filing of the suit the names of the defendants respondents No. 7, 13, 15,16,17,29 and 30 were struck off at the first appellate stage. It is pertinent to mention that the defendants respondents No. 29 and 30 are the legal heirs of Birendra Kumar Roy. 3. The said tenancy was inherited by plaintiffs petitioners and continued vide written agreement and the last agreement was entered into between the plaintiff petitioner No. 1 and Naresh Roy and the rent fixed at Rs. 1501/-per month of the suit premises. Dispute started amongst the heirs of Birendra Kumar Roy with respect to the ownership of the suit premises and as a result the said legal heirs declined to accept the monthly rent of the suit premises. The plaintiffs petitioners were compelled to deposit the monthly rent in the court. The plaintiffs petitioners discussed with Naresh Roy in respect of transfer of ownership of the suit premises in favour of the plaintiffs petitioners. The said Naresh Roy assured the plaintiffs petitioners orally that the suit premises would be sold in favour of the plaintiffs petitioners but they came to know that the ownership of the suit premises was transferred to the defendants respondents No. 19 to 28 by way of a registered sale deed bearing No. 30/1999 dated 20.1.1999 registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Pathsala. The said sale deed was executed by the defendant respondent No. 18 on the strength of a registered deed of power of attorney bearing No. 217/98 dated 11.9.1998 purportedly executed by 13 nos. of legal heirs of late Birendra Kumar Roy which includes his son Naresh Ch Roy. It is further pleaded that all the heirs of Birendra did not execute the said power of attorney nor the sale deed but the defendants respondents asked the plaintiffs petitioners to vacate the suit premises for which the suit was filed seeking the reliefs hereinabove mentioned. 4. The defendants respondents No. 18 to 28(attorney holder and the purchaser) contested the suit denying the pleadings in the plaint by filing joint written statement alongwith counter claim. However, in the counter claim the defendant respondent No. 18 represented as the attorney of the defendants respondents No.1 to 14 and 29 seeking consideration of the written statement and counter claim on behalf of the said defendants. However, in the counter claim the defendant respondent No. 18 represented as the attorney of the defendants respondents No.1 to 14 and 29 seeking consideration of the written statement and counter claim on behalf of the said defendants. As per pleadings in the counter claim Birendra Kumar Roy was the owner of land measuring 2 katha 10 lechas covered by K.P. Patta No. 469 dag No. 707. Birendra kumar Roy had three sons. He rented out the house standing on the said land to three groups of tenant and the plaintiffs petitioners are one of the said groups. During continuation of the monthly tenancy two of his sons Kamakhya and Ramesh died. Naresh looked after the said tenancy and the rented houses and he used to reside at Howrah in the State of West Bengal and the legal heirs of Ramesh and Kamakhya reside elsewhere. Finding it difficult to look after the premises the defendant respondent No.18 was appointed the attorney alongwith the authority to sell, gift and transfer the said suit premises. On the strength of the said authority defendant respondent No. 18 informed the plaintiffs petitioners that the other two groups of tenants purchased their respective tenanted premises alongwith the land under their occupation and asked the plaintiffs petitioners to purchase the suit premises. But they refused to purchase the land under their occupation. Thereafter the said defendant respondent No. 18 by way of registered sale deed bearing No. 30/99 sold the suit premises to the defendants respondent Nos. 19 to 28 which was demarcated by the revenue staff. The purchasers informed about the sale transaction and requested the plaintiffs petitioners to deposit the rent to them which they defaulted even after repeated demands. Hence, the plaintiffs petitioners are defaulter and liable to be evicted from the suit premises and further the said defendants respondents No. 19 to 28 require the suit premises bonafide for running their business. In the said counter claim, the said defendants respondents No. 18 to 28 sought for relief of ejectment of plaintiffs petitioners from the suit premises both on the ground of defaultership and bonafide requirement of the defendants respondents. 5. In the said counter claim, the said defendants respondents No. 18 to 28 sought for relief of ejectment of plaintiffs petitioners from the suit premises both on the ground of defaultership and bonafide requirement of the defendants respondents. 5. The plaintiffs petitioners filed their written statement against the counter claim raising the plea that the registered deed of power of attorney was a fraudulent one and the sale deed was registered beyond the local jurisdictional sub-Registrar’s office, the attorney holder had no saleable right of the suit property. Admitting, the tenancy since the life time of late Birendra Kumar Roy, the plaintiffs petitioners stated that they are paying rent in the Court and also raised the plea that the sale deed was fraudulently executed by the defendant respondent No. 18 and as such sought for dismissal of the counter claim. 6. On the basis of the pleadings the learned trial court framed the following issues:- “1. Have the plaintiffs attorned the contesting defendant as their landlord? 2. Are the plaintiffs defaulter in paying the rent and are liable to be evicted from the suit premises? 3. Is the suit premises required bonafide to the contesting defendants? 4. Whether the contesting defendants have subsisting right, title and interest over the suit premises ? 5. Whether the deed of power of attorney being No. 217/98 dtd. 11.8.98 and the registered sale deed being No. 30/99 dtd. 20.1.99 are fraudulent illegal and inoperative in the eye of law and liable to be cancelled? 6. To what relief or reliefs are the parties?” 7. During trial the plaintiffs petitioners examined three witnesses and exhibited documents including the treasury challans of various N.J. Cases in order to support the fact that they are not defaulter rather paying the rent in the Court as per the law. On the other hand, the defendants respondents also examined three witnesses and exhibited some documents in support of their stand. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.10.2002 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs petitioners and decreed the counter claim of the defendants respondents. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 11.10.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 11.10.2002 dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs petitioners and decreed the counter claim of the defendants respondents. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree dated 11.10.2002 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Barpeta in Title Suit No. 8/1999, plaintiffs petitioners preferred RFA No. 95/2002 before this Court which was sent back to the learned District Judge, Barpeta and after registering the same as Title Appeal No. 23/2006, the same was disposed of vide judgment and decree dated 25.8.2008 by the learned court of Additional District Judge (FTC), Barpeta dismissing the suit and upheld the decree passed in the counter claim. Second appeal, RSA No. 137/2008 was filed challenging the judgment and decree of the first appellate court passed in Title Appeal No. 23/2006 and the same was admitted on 18.9.2009 formulating the sole substantial question of law reproduced hereinbelow which is separately dealt with and the same is dismissed:- “Whether the sale deed (Exhibit-B) confers any right, title and interest on the defendants and the same is illegal, void and inoperative, the same having been executed by the power of attorney holder Khanindra Nath Das pursuant to the power given by some of the heirs of late Birendra Roy, who is the original owner of the disputed property, without there being any partition amongst the pattadars.” 8. Subsequent thereto CRP 375/2008 was also preferred thereby challenging the said judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court in Title Appeal No. 23/2006 decreeing the counter claim of defendants respondents and vide order dated 22.7.2009 the records of Title Appeal No. 23/2006 alongwith Title Suit No. 8/1999 were called for and further proceeding in Title Execution Case No. 4/2008 in the court of Civil Judge, Barpeta was stayed. On the other hand while admitting the second appeal order was passed to list the CRP 375/2008 alongwith the second appeal. The Revision petition is dealt with in this judgment. 9. Mr. G. P. Bhowmick, learned Senior Counsel submits that the findings of the courts below are perverse so far the issue of defaultership on the part of the petitioners are concerned. It is the contention of the learned Senior counsel that the attorney holder once authorised to collect the rent ought to have intimated the petitioners to deposit the monthly rent to him. It is the contention of the learned Senior counsel that the attorney holder once authorised to collect the rent ought to have intimated the petitioners to deposit the monthly rent to him. Referring to the order passed by this court for apportionment for depositing the rent in the Court, Mr. Bhowmick submits that there cannot be any violation of the conditions as stipulated under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 on the ground that there was no tender to the landlord before depositing the rent in the Court owing to the dispute amongst the co-sharers of the tenanted premises. The order of apportionment passed by this court itself is sufficient to prove the dispute amongst the legal heirs of Birendra Kumar Roy. It is also submitted that the tenancy has all along been continued since past 50 years and mere failure on the part of the petitioners to deposit once the monthly rent ought not to have held the petitioners as defaulter by the courts below. 10. Mr. Sahewalla learned Senior counsel for the respondents on the other hand, submits that the counter claim is filed by the defendants respondents to eject the plaintiffs petitioners on the ground that they defaulted in paying the monthly rent. The burden lies upon the plaintiffs petitioners to disprove the said fact of defaulter-ship by producing the N.J. Case records. Instead the treasury challans were exhibited in order to support that they are not defaulters. The learned courts below observed that the plaintiffs petitioners are aware that the monthly rent is to be paid on or before the 15th day of next month but the house rent for two consecutive months were paid in the Court on 2.1.2002 and as such said deposit is contrary to the terms of tenancy and also in violation of provision under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. There was no tender of the monthly rent to the landlord by the plaintiffs petitioners before depositing the same in the court. As such there is no perversity in the finding of the courts below and deciding the counter claim in favour of the defendants respondents. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. The courts below came to the finding that the relationship between the landlord and tenant was not strained. As such there is no perversity in the finding of the courts below and deciding the counter claim in favour of the defendants respondents. 11. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel. The courts below came to the finding that the relationship between the landlord and tenant was not strained. PW 1 one of the petitioners in his cross examination admitted that he had knowledge about the fact that the defendants respondents became the owners of the suit premises and despite their knowledge they did not tender the house rent to the defendants respondents. It is also admitted by said PW 1 that he was aware with regard to the appointment of Khanindra Nath Das as the attorney on behalf of the landlord. Even thereafter the plaintiffs petitioners defaulted in depositing the said rent in the court without tendering the rent to the said authorised agent. The said findings of the courts below which are concurrent in nature are sufficient to hold that the plaintiffs petitioners are defaulter and as such the decree for ejectment was rightly passed by the courts below and there is no illegality in the said findings. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in this revision petition. Interim order staying the proceeding in Title Execution Case No. 4/2008 in the Court of Civil Judge, Barpeta stands vacated.