This is an appeal by the plaintiff which arises on the following circumstances. The appellant as plaintiff instituted a suit against the sole respondent as defendant for eviction of the defendant from the suit land.

2. The plaintiff inter alia pleaded that the defendant was his employee in one of the tea estates and was dismissed from service on 29.11.76. Plaintiff also pleaded that taking advantage of his employment, defendant trespassed into the suit land illegally, hence the suit for eviction.

3. The defendant contested the suit, filed its written statement pleading inter alia that he had been in continuous possession over the suit land since 1962 as an occupancy tenant of the plaintiff, therefore he is not liable to be evicted as sought for protection granted by the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act. 1971. The learned trial Court framed the following issues :

“(1) Whether there is any cause of action for the suit and whether any cause of action arose on 8.4.76 and thereafter ? .

(2) Whether the suit has been properly valued and proper Court fee has been filed?

(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable for want of valid notice as required under law ? .

(4) Whether the plaint has been signed and verified in proper way by properly authorised person ?

(5) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

(6) Whether defendant having acquired the occupancy right is not liable to be evicted under law and is protected by Assam Tenancy Laws ? (7) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for ?

(8) What other relief or relief's the parties are entitled to?”

4. After conclusion of the trial? the learned trial Court decided the issue Nos. 2,3 and 5 in favour of the plaintiff and issue Nos 1,4,6,7 and 8 in favour of the defendant and accordingly dismissed the suit. On appeal the learned appellate Court decided the issue Nos 1, 2, 3 and 5 in favour of the plaintiff and went against the plaintiff in issue Nos 4,6 and 7 and dismissed the appeal.

5. In the second appeal this Court formulated one substantial question of law namely as to whether the learned Court below fell into error in deciding the suit holding that the defendant as a protected tenant under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971. In addition a substantial question of law arises c in this appeal as to whether the Court below fell into error in deciding the issue No. 4 against the appellant in dismissing the suit on erroneous interpretation of Order 29 Rule 1 read with Order 6 Rule 14 of the CPC.

6. Mr. SN Sarma, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 is not applicable to the land comprised in the estates settled for special cultivation when, and only so long as, such lands are used for the purpose of special cultivation and purposes ancillary thereto. Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel pointed out that both the Courts below accepted that the land in question was the land settled for special cultivation. The learned appellate Court dealt with the issue and while dealing with the matter has pointed out that the land belongs to New Lease Grant. Based on that Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel submitted that since the land was settled for special cultivation the application of the Act is barred in view of the exception made in section 2 (b) of the Act. The learned Court below failed to take into consideration that aspect of the matter and dismissed the suit illegally. Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel also submitted that the learned Courts below took a too technical view in dismissing the suit on the alleged irregularities in signing and verifying the plaint. Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel also submitted that at no stage licence was any doubt about the genuineness of the suit presented by the authority the learned Court below ought not to have rejected the plaint on the purported ground of procedural formalities. Mr. Sarma, the learned counsel for the appellant in suppor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document