The institution of a suit for rent by the landlord is evidence of his assent to recognize the defendants as his continuing tenants.

This is a second appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Addl. District Judge, Tripura, setting aside the judgment and decree of the learned Munsiff, Dharmanagar, and dismissing the plaintiffs-appellants suit for recovery of rent and compensation.

2. The facts, out of which this appeal arises, may be stated briefly. The defendants-respondents 1 and 2 took a lease of the suit premises by virtue of an unregistered lease deed dated 16th January, 1959 on an annual rent of Rs. 94/-. This lease commenced from the month of Pous, 1365 B. S., and, accordingly, it expired on Agrahayan, 1366, B. S. As the defendants 1 and 2 had not paid any rent for these 12 months, the plaintiffs filed a suit and subsequently obtained a decree of rent up to the month of Agrahayan, 1366 B. S. in M. S. No. 41 of 1959. Sometime later, the plaintiffs instituted a suit against the defendants 1 and 2 for eviction, but that suit was withdrawn. The records are not available here on what ground that suit for eviction had been withdrawn. In any case, the admitted position is that the suit for eviction was withdrawn. There are no records to show whether upon withdrawal, the said suit was dismissed for non-prosecution. The plaintiffs then instituted a suit against the same defendants 1 and 2 (defendant-respondents in this second appeal) for recovery of rent for 21 months commencing from Pous, 1356 B. S. to Bhadra, 1368 B. S. and also for compensation amounting to Rs. 26/-. This suit for recovery of rent was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs by the trial Court, but on appeal the learned Additional District Judge set aside the decree and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. Hence this second appeal.

3. In the appeal, the learned Additional District Judge addressed himself to two points, namely, (1) whether the appellants-defendants are tenants under the respondents-plaintiffs with respect to the suit premises. (2) Whether the respondents-plaintiffs are entitled to get rent and compensation as claimed by them.

4. The learned Appellate Court below found that the appellant-defendants (respondent-defendants here) were not tenants under the plaintiffs-appellants, since the respondents could not be treated as tenants, holding over. On that ground, it was held that the plaintiffs-appellants could not recover any rent from the defendants-respondents, although they were left free to sue for use and occupation of the suit property.

5. The principal question that falls for determination in this second appeal is whether the defendants can be held to be tenants holding over, on the facts and circumstances of the case. In other words, the question depends on what is the true scope and effect of Section 116, T. P. Act

6. Mr. R. Ghosh, learned counsel, appearing for the plaintiffs-appellants, submits that the defendants must be treated to be tenants holding over. He first invites my attention to the lease-deed dated 16th January, 1959, on basis of which the plaintiffs had obtained a decree of rent. It cannot, therefore, be disputed, nor indeed is it disputed, by the defendants-respondents that they were tenants of the plaintiffs from Pous, 1365 until Agrahayan, 1366. From this position, Mr. Ghosh takes his case a step further. He submits that once it has been proved that a person is a tenant of a certain landlord and is continuing in possession of the premises under tenancy upon some manner of assent, either by acceptance of rent or otherwise, by the landlord, such person must be ascribed the status of a holding over tenant. In other words, the obligations of tenancy, as contemplated under Section 116 of the T. P. Act, will be fastened on such a person. Mr. Ghosh submits that there can be no question that the defendants 1 and 2 were initially tenants under the plaintiffs. He next submits that upon expiry of the period of tenancy under the lease deed dated 16th January, 59, defendants 1 and 2 continued to be in possession of the tenancy premises. He then submits that al