ORDER : Heard Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. P. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellant is the defendant in Title Suit No.79/2009 in the court of learned Munsiff No.1 at Jorhat. The said suit was filed by the respondent No. 1 as the plaintiff for declaration and possession. On 26.9.2005 the plaintiff respondent No.1 purchased land measuring 19 lechas covered by dag No. 4793 Periodic Patta No. 171 of Block No.2 Jorhat Town described in the Schedule-A of the plaint by way of registered sale deed from late Purnendu Kishore Roy. The possession of the land was handed over to the plaintiff respondent No.1. The defendant appellant being the monthly tenant under Purnendu Kishore Roy possessed a temporary shed over an area of land measuring 8’ x 15’ out of the schedule-A land at monthly rent of Rs.850/-. The said tenanted premises is the suit property whereupon the defendant appellant is carrying on a motor cycle repairing centre. The vendor of the plaintiff respondent No.1 informed the said defendant appellant about the sale transaction and the defendant appellant duly attorned the tenancy with the plaintiff respondent No.1 as the landlord. But he never used to tender any rent to the landlord. The plaintiff respondent No.1 in order to expand his timber business for his own bonafide necessity required the said suit land for which he asked the defendant appellant since 2005 to vacate the same. There was no response from the defendant appellant. Notice through the Advocate of the plaintiff respondent No.1 was issued to the defendant appellant who replied by taking the stand that he took on lease the vacant land from Purnendu Kishore Roy for running his motor cycle repairing centre on monthly rental basis. A shed was also constructed by the tenant and he remained in possession since 1987 by paying monthly rent regularly. The defendant appellant after the transfer of the land to the plaintiff respondent No.1 started depositing the house rent in the court in clear violation of law and as such, the tenant became a defaulter. Hence, the suit for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 over the suit land and recovery of the same by evicting the defendant appellant. 3. Hence, the suit for declaration of right, title and interest of the plaintiff respondent No. 1 over the suit land and recovery of the same by evicting the defendant appellant. 3. The defendant appellant filed his written statement taking the defence that the land measuring 9’ X 16’ of the schedule-A land was taken on lease in the year 1987 on monthly rent. After taking the land on rent he constructed one shop premises with C. I. sheet roofing and RCC pillar for running his business. The rent which he paid to the original owner was acknowledged by the earlier landlord up to December, 2006 which was accepted by the landlord on 14.1.2007. No information was given to the said defendant appellant by the earlier landlord about the transfer of the tenanted premises. Till the year, 2006, the earlier landlord accepted the monthly rent of Rs.850/-and thereafter he suddenly left Jorhat. The defendant appellant used to deposit the rent continuously in the court w.e.f. January, 2007. During his absence from Jorhat temporarily, the defendant appellant deposited the rent for the tenanted premises for six months at a time in advance. From the Advocate notice of the plaintiff respondent No.1 on 24.10.2008 the defendant appellant came to know about the sale transaction. After receipt of the said notice, vide his reply through his Advocate dated 6.11.2008, he informed about the tenancy with respect to the land and subsequent construction of permanent structure over the same. The defendant appellant had lawfully occupied and continuing the occupation of the suit premises as a tenant in respect of the suit land which is a non-agricultural one located at urban area and he has not violated any terms of the tenancy and as such, he is fully protected from eviction under Section 5 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955. Taking the said defence he sought for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the basis of the pleadings following issues were framed:- “1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 3. Whether the plaintiff have right, title and interest over the land mentioned in schedule A? 4. Whether the plaintiff became the owner of schedule B land? 5. Whether the defendant No.1 was a tenant in respect of the Schedule B land under Lt. Purnendu Kishore Roy ? 6. 2. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form? 3. Whether the plaintiff have right, title and interest over the land mentioned in schedule A? 4. Whether the plaintiff became the owner of schedule B land? 5. Whether the defendant No.1 was a tenant in respect of the Schedule B land under Lt. Purnendu Kishore Roy ? 6. Whether the defendant No.1 became the tenant of the plaintiff after execution of the sale deed? 7. Whether the defendant is a defaulter of payment of rent in the eye of law? 8. Whether the defendant has constructed any permanent structure of the suit premises with the knowledge and consent of the landlord? If so, whether the defendant is protected from eviction from the suit premises under the Assam None Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 ? 9. Whether the defendant is an encroacher or a lesses under Purnendu Kishore Roy.? 10. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for? 11. To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled for ?” 5. The plaintiff respondent No.1 examined four witnesses and the defendant appellant examined three witnesses and both the parties relied and exhibited some documents. The learned trial court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff respondent No.1 declaring his right, title and interest over the schedule-A land including the suit land with further declaration that the defendant appellant is a tenant under the plaintiff respondent No.1 and he is a defaulter in payment of monthly rent and liable to be evicted vide judgment and decree dated 29.3.2010 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Jorhat in T.S. No. 79/2008. The defendant appellant put the said judgment and decree dated 29.3.2010 under challenge in Title Appeal No. 8/2010 in the court of Civil Judge at Jorhat. The said appeal was also dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 14.7.2011. Being aggrieved the defendant appellant filed this second appeal which was admitted on 18.11.2011 on the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether the impugned judgment and decree by which lower appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial Court giving his findings under Issue No.6 and 7 is absolutely perverse ? Being aggrieved the defendant appellant filed this second appeal which was admitted on 18.11.2011 on the following substantial questions of law:- “(i) Whether the impugned judgment and decree by which lower appellate court affirmed the decision of the trial Court giving his findings under Issue No.6 and 7 is absolutely perverse ? (ii) Whether the learned lower appellate Court committed an error affirming the findings of the trial Court, inter alia, that the defendant is a defaulter in payment of rent even when the defendant in his written statement specifically stated that the defendant came to know about the sale of the land occupied by the defendant only after receiving legal notice dated 24.10.2008 issued by the plaintiff through his learned counsel?” 6. Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel submits that the learned court below failed to appreciate the evidence on record and also the requirements for ejectment of a tenant under the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955. It is a fact that the plaintiff respondent No.1 failed to disprove the fact of tenancy with his vendor and the defendant appellant which was not with respect to the house standing thereon the suit premises. On the other hand, there are overwhelming evidence to show that the defendant appellant took the suit land on rent and thereafter he constructed the shed and continued his possession by carrying out his business. The plaintiff respondent No.1 also failed to issue notice as required under Section 11 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955. Further, it is submitted that even if the defendant appellant is held to be a defaulter in payment of rent, he is not evictable inasmuch as, on depositing of the arrear rent within 30(thirty) days from the date of decree in the court which is competent to execute the decree the tenant is not liable for eviction. The courts below failed to consider the said aspect of the matter and as such, the same is vitiated with perversity. Continuing his argument Mr. The courts below failed to consider the said aspect of the matter and as such, the same is vitiated with perversity. Continuing his argument Mr. Mahanta further submits that even if the defendant appellant is considered to be a tenant with respect to the house, then also the defendant appellant cannot be termed to be a defaulter inasmuch as, it is on 24.10.2008 he could come to know about the transfer of the suit premises and that too after receiving the legal notice from the Advocate of the plaintiff respondent No.1. He deposited the rent thereafter in the name of plaintiff respondent No.1 in the court which bails him out from the defaulter ship and as such, substantial questions of law are to be decided in favour of the defendant appellant. 7. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand, submits that there is no perversity in the finding of the courts below. Admittedly the defendant appellant paid the rent at a time for six months in advance in the court while he was temporarily away from Jorhat. The said act itself is sufficient to hold that the defendant appellant is a rank defaulter and liable to be ejected from the tenanted premises. No protection can be pleaded under the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 inasmuch as, the defendant respondent himself contradicts his stand by depositing the rent in the court under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. With these, he submits that the second appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. Considered the submission of the learned counsel. It is the case of the plaintiff respondent No.1 that prior to the purchase of the suit land the defendant appellant was inducted as a tenant with respect to the shed and after purchase, to that effect proper intimation was given to the defendant appellant to attorn the plaintiff respondent No.1 as the landlord. The sale transaction took place in the year, 2005 and the tenancy of the defendant appellant with the earlier landlord started with effect from 1987. The defendant appellant had not disputed the said transfer from his earlier landlord to the plaintiff respondent No.1.The court below from the evidence examined the devolution of title from Purnendu Kishore Roy to the plaintiff respondent No.1. The defendant appellant had not disputed the said transfer from his earlier landlord to the plaintiff respondent No.1.The court below from the evidence examined the devolution of title from Purnendu Kishore Roy to the plaintiff respondent No.1. The defendant appellant also did not dispute the tenancy which existed between Purnendu Kishore Roy and himself except that the tenancy was with respect to the land within the suit premises but not with respect to the house standing thereon. Section 109 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (for short the 1882 Act) clearly prescribes the rights of the lessor’s transferee wherein it is stipulated that the transferee shall possesses all the rights as that of the transferor landlord and if the tenant/lessee so elects be subject to all the liabilities of the lessor i.e. the transferor landlord. But only because of the said transfer the lessee/tenant cannot cease to be subject to the liabilities imposed upon him by the terms of the lessee/tenancy. 9. From the said provision under Section 109 of the said 1882 Act, it is seen that even if there is a transfer of the tenanted premises by the landlord to another transferee, the tenant is subject to the liabilities towards the subsequent landlord transferee and the tenant has the liability to abide by the terms of the tenancy. In the present case in hand, admittedly, the defendant appellant received the notice from the plaintiff respondent No.1 and as per his own deposition he could come to know about the transfer of the tenanted premises to the plaintiff respondent No.1 by his earlier landlord late Purnendu Kishore Roy from the notice dated 24.10.2008. Even thereafter he failed to tender the monthly rent to the plaintiff respondent No.1, rather from the treasury challan, Exts. B(v) to B(xii) the defendant appellant deposited the monthly rent together in the name of Sambhu Nath Saha, plaintiff respondent No.1 w.e.f. the month of January, 2009. The act of tendering the rent is required under Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 which is totally missing. As required under Section 5(4) it is only after the landlord refused to accept the rent on tender being made by the tenant, he is entitled to deposit in the court the rent within a fortnight from the date of its falling due. As required under Section 5(4) it is only after the landlord refused to accept the rent on tender being made by the tenant, he is entitled to deposit in the court the rent within a fortnight from the date of its falling due. The defendant respondent failed to substantiate that the said condition for depositing the rent in the court was duly fulfilled. 10. Against the pleadings of the plaintiff respondent No.1 that the defendant appellant is the tenant with respect to the house, it is the defence of the defendant appellant that he is a tenant with respect to the land but not with respect to the house standing thereon and as such, he is entitled to the protection under the 1955 Act. The said stand is belied by the Exts. A1 to A20, the rent receipts produced by the defendant appellant which were issued by Purnendu Kishore Roy, the earlier landlord. The said land receipts were with respect to the house rent but not with respect to the rent for the land. It is admitted by the defendant appellant in his cross-examination that since the month of January, 2007 the defendant appellant had deposited the rent for the use and occupation of the suit premises in the court through treasury challans marked as Exts.7(2) to 13(2) and the said rent was deposited by himself for the house and shop. In his cross-examination the defendant appellant clearly disclosed that he could not produce any evidence to show that he constructed the standing house on the suit land nor he could recollect the name of the person engaged for construction of the shed standing over the suit land. D.W. 2 and D.W 3, namely Ranjan Goswami and Dulal Dey respectively though claimed to be present at the time of the construction work but the defendant appellant is totally silent about their presence at the time of construction of the shed neither in the pleadings nor in his cross-examination. 11. Section 5 of the 1955 Act stipulates specifically that the tenant there under must construct standing structure of permanent nature within 5(five) years from the commencement of the tenancy and as per term of the tenancy. The said condition must be fulfilled in order to get the protection under the said Act of 1955. 11. Section 5 of the 1955 Act stipulates specifically that the tenant there under must construct standing structure of permanent nature within 5(five) years from the commencement of the tenancy and as per term of the tenancy. The said condition must be fulfilled in order to get the protection under the said Act of 1955. In the present case in hand, the defendant appellant has deposited the rent in the court as per Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972 though without fulfilling the pre-condition of tendering the rent to the landlord. There is no provision in the 1955 Act to deposit the monthly rent in the court except the decreetal arrear rent in a decree passed by a competent Civil Court within 30(thirty) days from the date of decree. 12. From the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any perversity in the findings of the courts below so far the issue Nos. 6 and 7 are concerned nor there is any perversity in the finding that the defendant appellant is a defaulter inasmuch, as per Section 109 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 the tenant does not cease to be the subject to any of the liabilities imposed upon him by the lease/tenancy agreement entered with the earlier landlord prior to the transfer of the tenanted premises to the subsequent purchaser/lessor. In the present case as per the terms of the tenancy entered with his earlier landlord Purnendu Kishore Roy, he was bound to deposit the monthly rent but as per his own pleading he deposited the monthly rent in advance for six months in the court while he was temporarily out of Jorhat and without tendering the monthly rent to the subsequent purchaser, plaintiff-respondent No.1 he deposited the same in the court even after he received the notice dated 24.10.2008. 13. Accordingly, both the substantial questions of law are decided against the defendant appellant. 14. Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel during the course of the argument sought for allowing the present defendant appellant to allow him to continue to occupy the tenanted premises for a term of one year in order to shift from the tenanted premises. The said submission is opposed by Mr. Choudhury learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent No.1. 14. Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior counsel during the course of the argument sought for allowing the present defendant appellant to allow him to continue to occupy the tenanted premises for a term of one year in order to shift from the tenanted premises. The said submission is opposed by Mr. Choudhury learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent No.1. However, keeping in view that the defendant appellant has yet been continuing with the business activities from the tenanted premises, I am of the considered opinion that 8 (eight) months time w.e.f. the date of judgment in this appeal be allowed to the defendant appellant to vacate the tenanted premises and on his failure, the plaintiff respondent No.1 shall put the decree for its execution. It is further clarified that the rent for the month of 8(eight) months w.e.f. 1.12.2018 till 31.7.2019 @ 850/- per month shall be deposited to the landlord plaintiff respondent No.1 at a time within a period of one month from the date of judgment in this appeal. 15. With the said observation this second appeal stands dismissed. No cost. Send back the LCR. Prepare a decree accordingly.