Default in Rent Payment Alone Sufficient for Eviction: Gauhati High Court

The Gauhati High Court has upheld the eviction of tenants from a rented premises, holding that failure to deposit rent in accordance with statutory requirements renders tenants defaulters, and that such default alone is sufficient to sustain a decree of ejectment even in the absence of a specific finding on bona fide requirement.

A single-judge bench of Justice Robin Phukan dismissed a civil revision petition challenging concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court, affirming the decree directing eviction of the tenants.

The Court held that the petitioners had failed to discharge their burden of proving that rent was validly paid in terms of Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, and further observed that even assuming absence of proof of bona fide requirement, eviction could be sustained solely on the ground of default.

The dispute arose from a tenancy in Guwahati where the petitioners were occupying an Assam-type house for running a bakery business while residing in another structure within the same premises, paying monthly rent of Rs. 700.

The landlord initiated a suit for ejectment on the grounds of default in payment of rent from July 2012 and bona fide requirement of the premises for establishing a business for her son.

The tenants resisted the claim, denying default and disputing the alleged requirement.

The trial court framed multiple issues including default, maintainability, valuation, and entitlement to relief, and upon appreciation of evidence, decreed the suit in favour of the landlord.

The appellate court affirmed the decree. Aggrieved, the tenants approached the High Court under Section 115 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contending inter alia that no issue had been framed on bona fide requirement and that the findings of default were perverse and unsupported by evidence.

Before the High Court, the petitioners argued that mere desire of the landlord does not constitute bona fide requirement and that the courts below had failed to assess whether there existed a genuine need.

It was further contended that rent had been deposited in court, negating the allegation of default.

The respondents, however, argued that the tenants had failed to tender rent to the landlord prior to depositing it in court and had not complied with the statutory timelines, thereby attracting the consequences of default under the Rent Control Act.

The High Court noted that although no specific issue had been framed on bona fide requirement, the pleadings contained assertions in that regard which were not specifically denied by the defendants. Invoking the doctrine of non-traversal under Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Court held that evasive denials amount to implied admissions, thereby permitting the Court to consider such facts without further proof.

Reliance was placed on established precedent to reiterate that facts not specifically traversed need not be proved.

On the question of default, the Court undertook a detailed examination of Section 5(4) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972, and held that deposit of rent in court without prior tender to the landlord does not constitute valid payment. It further observed that rent must be deposited within the prescribed period of fifteen days of the succeeding month, and any deviation from this statutory mandate renders the tenant a defaulter.

The Court found that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate compliance with these requirements and had not adduced sufficient evidence to establish lawful payment of rent.

The Court also drew an adverse inference against the petitioners for not entering the witness box to substantiate their claims, reiterating the settled principle that failure of a party to depose in support of its own case permits the Court to presume that such case is not correct.

The Court emphasized that the burden to establish absence of default lay on the tenants, which they failed to discharge.

Significantly, the Court held that even if the plea of bona fide requirement were to be disregarded, the finding of default in payment of rent independently justified eviction.

It reiterated that under rent control jurisprudence, default is a substantive ground for eviction and does not depend on the establishment of any additional ground.

Finding no perversity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of the courts below, the High Court dismissed the revision petition, holding that it was devoid of merit and warranted no interference.

Case Title: Narayan Ghosh & Anr. v. On the Death of Asha Rout, Her Legal Heirs

Bench: Justice Robin Phukan

Date of Judgment: 31.03.2026