J. Sangma, J. - (1.)Earlier by my judgment dated 14.5.92, allowed this revision by setting aside the judgment of the learned Assistant District Judge, Tinsukia, in Title Appeal No. 8/1986 and restoring the judgment dated 31.1.83 of Shri K.C. Gogoi, Munsiff No. 1, Tinsukia in Title Suit No. 2/81 decreeing the plaintiff's suit for ejectment of the defendant and for arrear rent with compensation. But the Supreme Court, by order dated 19.2.93, passed in SLP (Civil) No. 14877 of 1992, remanded the case back to this court for fresh disposal of the revision after giving a hearing to the defendant.
(2.)In short the facts which are relevant for this revision are as follows. The plaintiff is the owner of a house at Na-Pukhuri Road, Tinsukia. By an unregistered agreement the defendant became a tenant in this house on monthly rent of Rs. 240.00 according to English calendar month from 1.8.78. There is no dispute that the agreed terms were:
(1) that the defendant would pay the rent in advance within first week of each month and

(2) that he would not make any construction in the premises without obtaining a consent from the plaintiff.
This tenancy was for 2 years ending on 31.7.80. Things went on between the parties smoothly till the early part of 1980. Thereafter the plaintiff complained that the defendant did not pay rent for July, 1980 in spite of repeated demand and also constructed a shed with wooden frame and CI Sheet on vacant part of the premises. The plaintiff, therefore, served quit notice to defendant asking him to vacate from 1.11.80. As the defendant did not vacate the plaintiff brought the aforesaid suit on 3.1.81:
(1) for eviction of the defendant and

(2) for arrear rent of Rs. 1620.00 with compensation.

(3.)The defendant contested the suit. In the written statement he did not deny the plaintiff's averments (1) that he was a tenant under the plaintiff on monthly rent of Rs. 240.00 according to English calendar month; (2) that the rent was payable in advance within first week of each month and (3) that he was not to make any construction in the premises without obtaining consent from the plaintiff. He did not also deny that the tenancy was for 2 years ending on 31.7.80. His plea was, in practise the plaintiff himself used to collect the rent in lump for two, three or even more months at a time by coming to defendant and therefore the rent was payable only on the plaintiff's demand, and not every month. His further case is: from July, 1980 the plaintiff demanded enhanced rent of Rs. 300.00; so he did not accept his offer of the same amount of Rs. 240.00. He stated that he, therefore, sent Rs. 960.00for rent of July and Oct., 1980 by M.O. on 10.10.80; and as the plaintiff did not accept it, he started depositing rents in court from the month of July. The defendant also denied the allegation that he constructed a shed on vacant part of the premises. Thus he prayed that the suit be dismissed with compensation to him u/s 35 CPC.