B.P. Katakey, J.

1. This appeal by the Plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.09.1998 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh, in Title Appeal No. 16/1996, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 31.05.1996 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Dibrugarh, in Title Suit No. 2/1979, whereby and whereunder the suit of the Plaintiff/Appellant was decreed.

2. The Appellant as Plaintiff instituted the Title Suit No. 2/1979 in the Court of the learned Munsif No. 1, Dibrugarh, against the predecessor-in-interest of the present Respondent Nos. 1, 1(a) to 1 (e); Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 4; the predecessor-in-interest of the Respondent Nos. 5, 5(a), 5(b) and Respondent Nos. 6 to 8, praying for a decree for recovery of khas possession by evicting the Respondent/Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 from the land measuring 1 katha 18 lechas, described in the schedule to the plaint, covered by Dag No. 3988 (old)/142 (new) of periodic patta No. 267 (old)/91 (new), situated at Khalihamari Ward of Dibrugarh Town and included the Municipal Holding No. 902 of Khalihamari Ward of Dibrugarh Municipality; for arrear rent and compensation and also for cost, contending inter alia that late Abdul Aziz, the predecessor-in-interest of the Defendant/Respondent Nos. 6 to 8 was the lawful owner of the suit land under whom the original Defendant No. 1 was a monthly tenant for 1 (one) year for rent, who constructed a temporary house thereon and agreed to vacate the land on expiry of lease period. The said period of lease of the suit land, however, was extended twice at the interval of 6 (six) months by enhancing the rate of the rent to Rs. 300/- half-yearly, which came to an end on 10.10.1946. According to the Plaintiff, the original Defendant No. 1 started the sweet meat shop in the temporary house in the name and style of the Defendant No. 2. It has further been pleaded that a fresh lease was thereafter created by Abdul Aziz in favour of the Defendant No. 1 at the rent of Rs. 600/- per year and with the stipulation that the Defendant No. I would not make any permanent structure on the land by changing the structure of the existing house, that he would not sublet the said land or the house to anybody and he shall vacate the land by removing the house therefrom whenever the landlord ask him to do so. The further pleaded case in the plaint is that taking advantage of the illness of Abdul Aziz, the Defendant No. 1 made some further improvement of the house without taking any permission and sublet the part of the house to some other tenants including the Plaintiff Gopal Chandra Sarkar and thereafter the Defendant No. 1 left for Duliajan. It has further been pleaded that after the death of Abdul Aziz, the Defendant Nos. 6 to 8, the successors-in-interest, sold the suit land to the Plaintiff by a registered deed of sale dated 03.08.1977 (Ext.- 25) for valuable consideration and was delivered the symbolic possession of the land and though the Defendant Nos. 1 to 5 were asked to attorn the Plaintiff as the landlord, they refused to accept the notice of such attornment sent by registered post. According to the Plaintiff, the Defendant No. 1, however, by operation of law, became the tenant under him. It has further been pleaded that since the Plaintiff required the suit land for his own purpose, notice dated 15.12.1977 [Ext.- 9(2)] was issued under registered post with A/D asking the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to quit and vacate the suit land and deliver the possession thereof by breaking and removing the houses standing thereon on expiry of 30.01.1978, copies of which were also sent to the Defendant Nos. 3 to 5 and while the Defendant No. 1 received the said notice, the other Defendants refused to accept the same. A fresh notice dated 04.09.1978 [Ext.- 18(2)] was issued by the plaintiff to the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 through his lawyer under registered post with A/D asking them to quit and vacate the possession of the suit land on exp