The provisions of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 cannot have retrospective effect in respect of land that was subsequently declared as a town land after the Act came into force.

This appeal arises out of a common judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 2/69 and Title Appeal No. 3 of 1969 by the learned District Judge, Tezpur. The respondent filed a Title Suit No. 6/68 for eviction of defendant No. I (appellant herein) from the suit premises with delivery of khas possession, arrear rent and mesne profit and compensation. The ca«e of the plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner of the land and house described in the schedule of the plaint situated at Rangapara Hindugaon ia the district of Soaitpar. T.\s plaintiff claims that she purchased the suit land and premises from proforma defendants 2 to 5 who were the original owners and possessors of the suit land and pre­mises by a registered sale deed dated 17.12.58 and she took delivery of possession of the same through her husband Shri Prakash Chakraborty. The defendant No. I has been occupying the suit house on the basis of an arrangement with husband of the plaintiff with her knowledge and consent. The tenancy with defendant No. I commenced cm and from 1962 and he has been in occupation of the suit house as monthly tenant on payment of rent of Rs. 42-50 per month. According to the plaintiff the tenancy commenced on and from first day of every English Calender month. It was stipulated that the defendant should not use the suit premises except for shop purpose and was prohibited to sub-let the same nor he was allowed to change the structure of the premises. It was specifically told to the defendant that any breach of the conditions, the defendant would be liable for eviction from the suit premises. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant defaulted to pay due rent inspite of demand made to him and as such the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant in the month of October, 1965 to pay the rent but the defendant again defaulted in payment of rent. It is further stated by the plaintiff that the defendant, without taking any permission either from the plaintiff or from her husband illegally pulled down a portion of the suit premises and started raising unauthorised construction in spite of protest made by the plaintiff not to do so. Therefore, the plaintiff issued another notice dated 8.7.66 through her Advocate requesting the defendant to vacate the suit premises by the end of July, 1966 and to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises. The notice was tendered to the defendant on 12.7.66 but he refused the accept the same. According to the plaintiff the arrear rent from the month of November, 1965 to July, 1966 was due from the defendant. On the aforesaid allegations the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for eviction and for arrear rent and damages including mesne profit. The principal defendant No. I who is the appellant herein contested the suit by filing written statement. He denies the allegations of being a tenant under the plaintiff in res­pect of the suit house on monthly rental of Rs. 42.50 as alleged in the plaint. The defendant's plea is that the house and structure standing on the suit liad was constructed by him with his own money. His defence is that he took the suit land on lease from the husband of the plaintiff from the month of January, 1961 on annual rental of Rs. 50/- and after taking possession of vacant land, improved the suit land and constructed permanent structure and dug a tube well. According to the defendant he paid rent upto the year 1965. The further plea of defendant is that after constructions of the house in the year 1961, he made addition and alteration according to his need by spending a huge amount. His further case is that the area under his occupation is 48-28' and he constructed the permanent structure on the suit land without any objection being raised by the plaintiff or her husband and the pucca construction was made in 1961 immediately after taking the suit land on lease. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court formulated and framed as many as fol