JUDGMENT : ROBIN PHUKAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P.J. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. K.J. Saikia, learned counsel for the respondent. 2. In this civil revision petition, under Section 115 of the CPC, the petitioner, namely, Sri Shew Kumar Prasad, has challenged the judgment dated 07.01.2025 and decree dated 20.01.2025, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia, in Title Appeal No. 6/2024. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned judgment dated 07.01.2025 and decree dated 20.01.2025, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tinsukia (‘Appellate Court’ for short) had allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and order dated 07.05.2024 and decree dated 15.05.2024, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Tinsukia (‘Trial Court’ for short), in Title Suit No. 46/2017. 4. For the sake of convenience, the status of the parties as indicated in Title Suit No. 46/2017, is adopted herein. 5. The background facts, leading to filing of the present petition, are briefly stated as under: “Pursuant to an agreement dated 01.08.1987, the defendant/petitioner herein came to occupy one Goomti/shop premises, as described in the Schedule of the plaint as tenant under the father of the plaintiff/respondent herein at a monthly rent of Rs. 350/- only. However, the defendant was irregular in the payment of due rent. The said premises is the subject matter of Title Suit No. 46/2017, which is referred to as suit premises. After the death of his parents, the plaintiff and his brother became the joint owners of the properties left by their parents. Thereafter, by virtue of a mutual family settlement in the year 2007 with his brother, the plaintiff became the absolute owner of the suit premises and the landlord of the defendant in respect of the suit premises and he started collecting the rent from him. Initially, the rent was fixed at Rs. 350/-, but the same was enhanced to Rs. 500/- w.e.f. January, 2006. Thereafter, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 600/- from the month of October, 2009, and then to Rs. 700/- from the month of March, 2013. Initially, the rent was fixed at Rs. 350/-, but the same was enhanced to Rs. 500/- w.e.f. January, 2006. Thereafter, the rent was enhanced to Rs. 600/- from the month of October, 2009, and then to Rs. 700/- from the month of March, 2013. Thereafter, on 14.02.2016, the defendant paid the rent for the month of January, 2016, but from the month of February, 2016 onwards, he defaulted in payment of rent and became defaulter w.e.f. the month of February, 2016, and as such, his possession of the suit premises became illegal and he was liable to be evicted. Accordingly, the plaintiff instituted the title suit before the learned Trial Court. The defendant had contested the suit by filing written statement. In his written statement, he admitted that the agreement dated 01.08.1987, was executed between the defendant and the predecessor of the plaintiff, but denied that he was irregular in payment of the due rent. He also denied that as per mutual settlement between the plaintiff's father and the defendant, the rent for the suit premises was enhanced from Rs. 350/- to Rs. 500/- w.e.f. January, 2006, and the same was enhanced to Rs. 600/- from the month of October, 2009 and then to Rs. 700/- from the month of March, 2013. The defendant also denied that he failed to pay rent from the month of February, 2016 onwards. His further stand was that the initial rent fixed was Rs. 350/- per month and during the period, the rent was enhanced only on one occasion and was fixed at Rs. 500/- per month, and that he had been regularly paying rent @ Rs. 500/- per month after enhancement. Upon the aforementioned pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court had framed as many as four issues, as under: (i) Whether this suit is maintainable in law as well as in facts? (ii) Whether defendant is liable to be evicted from suit premises? (iii) Whether the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 15,400/- as arrear of rent to plaintiff? (iv) To what reliefs, the parties are entitled to? Thereafter, considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing arguments of both the parties, the learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit, vide judgment dated 07.05.2024 and decree dated 15.05.2024. (iii) Whether the defendant is liable to pay Rs. 15,400/- as arrear of rent to plaintiff? (iv) To what reliefs, the parties are entitled to? Thereafter, considering the evidence adduced by the parties and hearing arguments of both the parties, the learned Trial Court had dismissed the suit, vide judgment dated 07.05.2024 and decree dated 15.05.2024. Being highly aggrieved, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, being Title Appeal No. 6/2024, before the learned Appellate Court and after hearing learned counsel for both the parties, the learned Appellate Court had allowed the appeal by setting aside the judgment and decree so passed by the learned Trial Court.” 6. Being aggrieved, the defendant has approached this Court by filing the present petition, challenging the judgment and decree so passed by the learned Appellate Court on the following grounds: (i) That, the learned Appellate Court had passed the impugned judgment dated 07.01.2025 and decree dated 20.01.2025, declaring the petitioner as defaulter without proving the due date of payment of the rent. (ii) That, the learned Appellate Court had passed the impugned judgment dated 07.01.2025 and decree dated 20.01.2025, without appreciating the fact and law involved in the case that mere marking the exhibits does not prove the document, without examining the author of the same. (iii) That, the learned Appellate Court had passed the impugned judgment dated 07.01.2025 and decree dated 20.01.2025, without appreciating the fact that the respondent/plaintiff was unable to prove the necessity for evicting the petitioner from the suit premises, which is a commercial premises. (iv) That, the learned Appellate Court had passed the impugned judgment dated 07.01.2025 and decree dated 20.01.2025, without considering the fact that the respondent failed to provide conclusive evidence of rent default as well as completely overlooked the anomalies in the house rent account book. (v) That, the learned Appellate Court had failed to establish the fact that the author of the individual maintaining the house rent account book was not examined and thus, taking into account the said document while passing the impugned judgment dated 07.01.2025 and decree dated 20.01.2025, is not tenable in the eye of law. (vi) That, the learned Appellate Court did not consider the fact that the respondent did not make subsequent pleading of the new facts that involved during the pendency of the case by way of amendment. (vi) That, the learned Appellate Court did not consider the fact that the respondent did not make subsequent pleading of the new facts that involved during the pendency of the case by way of amendment. (vii) That, the learned Appellate Court did not take into consideration about the contradiction made by the respondent in his cross- examination, wherein the plaintiff/respondent categorically admitted about irregular rent collection, and as such, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be interfered with. 7. Mr. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned judgment and decree, so passed by the learned Appellate Court is perverse, and that it has relied upon the decision of Shanti Prasad Devi and Anr. vs. Shankar Mahto and Ors. , (2005) 5 SCC 543 . Mr. Roychoudhury also submits that the petitioner herein is the statutory tenant and he cannot be evicted with a decree of Court, and that the learned Appellate Court had failed to consider the fact that though book of account was exhibited, yet the same had not been proved by examining the person, who maintained the same, and without the contents of the book of account being proved, the learned Appellate Court had relied upon the same. Mr. Roychoudhury further submits that the plaintiff/respondent herein had failed to prove on which date the rent became due, and that the relationship between the petitioner and the respondent was not good, and therefore, the petitioner had deposited the rent before the Court, and that the petitioner had issued notice to the respondent, but the respondent refused to accept the same. Mr. Roychoudhury also submits that the subsequent events that took place, had not been brought on record by filing amendment petition, and that the learned Trial Court had considered all these aspects and thereafter, dismissed the suit, and the reasoning given by the learned Trial Court is justified and the same warrants no interference, however, the learned Appellate Court without considering the facts and circumstances on the record, allowed the appeal, and that the impugned judgment and decree suffers from perversity, and therefore, it is contended to set aside the same. 8. Per contra, Mr. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the agreement was executed for a period of ten years and the said ten years had already elapsed, and the said agreement had not been renewed thereafter. Mr. 8. Per contra, Mr. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has pointed out that the agreement was executed for a period of ten years and the said ten years had already elapsed, and the said agreement had not been renewed thereafter. Mr. Saikia has also pointed out that the petitioner herein had paid rent till the month of January, 2016, and from the month of February, 2016, till December, 2017, no rent was paid, and that once a defaulter is always a defaulter, and subsequent payment of rent would not validate the same. Mr. Saikia has further pointed out that though no due date was fixed, the petitioner used to pay the rent on different dates and the same is apparent from the evidence of P.W.1 from paragraph No. 4. Further, Mr. Saikia has pointed out that the petitioner had failed to produce any document in respect of payment of rent from the month of February, 2016 to December, 2017, and that though in the agreement, it is stated that in the first week of the succeeding month, the rent has to be paid, yet the petitioner used to pay the same in the second week as per his convenience, and that there is no perversity in the impugned judgment and decree. Mr. Saikia has also pointed out that the book of account was maintained by the wife of the respondent and the same was exhibited as Ext.2 and the evidence of P.W.1 had established the same, and that the said book of account was not disputed in cross-examination, and under such circumstances, Mr. Saikia has contended to dismiss this petition. 9. In reply to the above submission, Mr. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Ext.2 was not exhibited by the person, who maintained the same. 10. Having heard the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties, I have carefully gone through the petition and the documents placed on record, and also perused the impugned judgment dated 07.01.2025 and decree dated 20.01.2025, so passed by the learned Appellate Court as well as the judgment dated 07.05.2024 and decree dated 15.05.2024, so passed by the learned Trial Court. 11. 11. The revisional powers of High Court under the various State Rent Acts and scope of the same have been dealt with by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited vs. Dilbahar Singh , (2014) 9 SCC 78 , wherein in paragraph No. 43, it has been held as under: “43. We hold, as we must, that none of the above Rent Control Acts entitles the High Court to interfere with the findings of fact recorded by the first appellate court/first appellate authority because on re-appreciation of the evidence, its view is different from the court/authority below. The consideration or examination of the evidence by the High Court in revisional jurisdiction under these Acts is confined to find out that finding of facts recorded by the court/authority below is according to law and does not suffer from any error of law. A finding of fact recorded by court/authority below, if perverse or has been arrived at without consideration of the material evidence or such finding is based on no evidence or misreading of the evidence or is grossly erroneous that, if allowed to stand, it would result in gross miscarriage of justice, is open to correction because it is not treated as a finding according to law. In that event, the High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under the above Rent Control Acts shall be entitled to set aside the impugned order as being not legal or proper. The High Court is entitled to satisfy itself as to the correctness or legality or propriety of any decision or order impugned before it as indicated above. However, to satisfy itself to the regularity, correctness, legality or propriety of the impugned decision or the order, the High Court shall not exercise its power as an appellate power to reappreciate or reassess the evidence for coming to a different finding on facts. Revisional power is not and cannot be equated with the power of reconsideration of all questions of fact as a court of first appeal. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.” 12. Bearing the above principle, now this Court will proceed to examine the impugned judgment and decree, so passed by the learned Appellate Court. 13. Where the High Court is required to be satisfied that the decision is according to law, it may examine whether the order impugned before it suffers from procedural illegality or irregularity.” 12. Bearing the above principle, now this Court will proceed to examine the impugned judgment and decree, so passed by the learned Appellate Court. 13. Herein this case, the title suit was filed for eviction of the defendant/petitioner herein on the ground of being defaulter in payment of rent of the suit premises. It is the categorical contention of the plaintiff/respondent herein that the petitioner had failed to make payment of the rent within the stipulated period i.e. first week of the succeeding month, but, as per his convenience, though no due date had been fixed. And the learned Appellate Court had found from the evidence of P.W.1 that the petitioner had failed to make payment of the rent from the month of February, 2016 till December, 2017. And besides, relying upon the evidence of P.W.1, the plaintiff/respondent herein, the learned Appellate Court had also relied upon Ext.2, i.e. the book of account of the house rent maintained by his wife. And then based upon the oral evidence of P.W.1 and Ext.2, the learned Appellate Court had held that the plaintiff/respondent herein succeeded in establishing that the defendant/petitioner herein had failed to make payment of the rent w.e.f. February, 2016 till December, 2017, and thereafter, the learned Appellate Court had arrived at a finding that the defendant/petitioner herein is the defaulter for the aforesaid period. 14. Though the petitioner had denied being a defaulter, his denial simpliciter is found to be not sound convincing. He had failed to produce any document before the Court to show that he made payment of the rent for the aforesaid period. From the evidence adduced by the respondent herein as plaintiff and the documents exhibited by him, goes a long way to show that he had succeeded in establishing that the petitioner herein was the defaulter for the aforementioned period. However, the petitioner had failed to rebut the aforementioned evidence by adducing any evidence of payment of rent for the aforementioned period. 15. Though the petitioner has taken a stand that the Ext.2, the book of account, was not proved by examining the wife of the respondent, who had maintained the Ext.2, yet the respondent had prima facie succeeded in establishing the same. 15. Though the petitioner has taken a stand that the Ext.2, the book of account, was not proved by examining the wife of the respondent, who had maintained the Ext.2, yet the respondent had prima facie succeeded in establishing the same. Moreover, there appears to be no cross-examination of P.W.1 on this point and Mr. Saikia, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has rightly pointed this out at the time of hearing and this Court finds substance in the same. It is well settled that once a defaulter is always a defaulter. Subsequent payment of rent by the petitioner after the period of being defaulter for the period as stated above, would not legalize/validate his action. 16. In the case of On The Death Of Nirmalendu Das His Legal Heirs vs. Dewan Abdul Munim Choudhury and Ors. , 2004 SCC OnLine Gau 377 , while discussing the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, especially Section 5 of the Act makes it clear that an order or decree for recovery of possession may be made or executed if the tenant has not paid the rent to the full extent and performed the conditions of the tenancy. A tenant in order to resist eviction sought for by a landlord under the Act is bound to prove that he has paid the rent lawfully due within the specified period in terms of the contract and in the event of refusal of the landlord to accept the same, to deposit in the court within a fortnight of its becoming due. Ejectment can also be made by the landlord from the tenanted premises on the ground of bona fide requirement of the tenanted premises by the landlord and on other grounds as mentioned in Section 5 (1) of the Act. 16.1. It has also been held that once a tenant is defaulter, he is always a defaulter and under scheme of the Act, subsequent deposit will not absolve the tenant from his liability to be evicted. 17. Though the petitioner has taken a stand that he had issued notice to the respondent which the respondent refused to receive and the notice was accompanied by money order also, yet, the said money order has not been exhibited before the Court by the petitioner, though the slip had been produced. 17. Though the petitioner has taken a stand that he had issued notice to the respondent which the respondent refused to receive and the notice was accompanied by money order also, yet, the said money order has not been exhibited before the Court by the petitioner, though the slip had been produced. Had the Money Order, which was sent by the petitioner to the respondent, been produced and proved, then the position would have been different. And on such count, the said submission of Mr. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner is found far from satisfactory. 18. Another aspect, which the learned Appellate Court had dealt with, is that the Ext.1 was executed on 01.08.1987, between the plaintiff’s father and the defendant. And the said agreement was for a period of ten years w.e.f. 01.08.1987, and as such, the agreement stood expired on 01.08.1997. And thereafter, no agreement was executed by the parties and thereafter, discussing the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shanti Prasad Devi (supra), it was held that as there was no tenancy agreement between the parties, the possession of the suit property by the defendant/petitioner herein is illegal and on this count also the petitioner is liable to be evicted from the suit shop. Under the given facts and circumstances, the learned Appellate Court had decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 19. Thus, having examined the impugned judgment and decree, so passed by the learned Appellate Court, on the touchstone of legality, propriety and correctness, this Court is of the view that no illegality is being committed by the learned Appellate Court in decreeing the suit. 20. Under such circumstances, this Court finds no merit in this revision petition, and accordingly, the same stands dismissed. 21. Send down the records of the learned Trial Court as well as the learned Appellate Court, along with a copy of this judgment and order.