1. Heard Mr. I.C. Deka, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. P. Khataniar, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. In challenge in this appeal under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is the first appellate judgment and decree dated 21.12.2006 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (F.T.C.) No. 4, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the "First Appellate Court"), in Title Appeal No. 6/1999, by which the appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 19.07.1999, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup, Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the "Trial Court"), in Title Suit No. 67/1993 (formerly TS No. 48/1987) was affirmed. This appeal was admitted by this Court vide order dated 22.08.2007 on the following substantial questions of law:-

“1. Whether a document not produced by the plaintiff in accordance with Order VII Rule 14 CPC can be admitted into evidence without the leave of the Court?

2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Lower Appellate Court are illegal for ignoring the mandatory provision of Order 41 Rule 31 CPC?

3. Whether the lease created under exhibit 5 was a lease for year to year lease and if so, whether the learned courts below committed illegality in decreeing the suit by applying the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act?”

3. The case of the respondents- plaintiffs, as it appears from the record is that the plaintiffs No. 1 namely, Hafizuddin Ahmed (since deceased) and Plaintiff No. 2, namely, Md. Saifuddin Ahmed had let out a CI Sheet roofed Assam type house standing on about 11 lechas of land covered by Dag No. 564, 565 and 573 of K.P. Patta No. 285 and 320 of Village Japarigog, Mouza-Beltola, morefully described in Schedule appended to the plaint to the respondent herein for one year on the basis of an agreement dated 01.03.1974. The monthly rent of the said premises was Rs. 300/- per month, which was payable within the first week of every subsequent month. The plaintiff No. 2, who was the owner of an adjacent plot of land allowed the respondent to occupy a thatched house standing thereon, without being let out to him. It was projected that the said CI Sheet Assam type house and the said thatched house was comprised under Holding No. 134 of Ward No. 29 of Guwahati Municipal Corporation Ward, standing in the name of the plaintiff No. 2. The case of the plaintiffs was that the defendant paid the monthly rent in respect of the tenanted premises only for the months from March, 1974 to February, 1975 and on and from 01.03.1975 till the filing of the suit, the defendant had failed to pay monthly rent to the plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 and around the year 1979-80, illegally converted the thatched house into an Assam type house and fraudulently got the his name entered into the Municipal Holding No. 144. Hence, by filing Title Suit No. 48/1987, the plaintiffs had, inter-alia, prayed for (a) decree declaring the title of the plaintiffs on the land and houses described in the schedule, (b) for eviction of the defendant from the suit premises by demolishing the house constructed by the defendant by converting the thatched house of the plaintiffs, (c) for decree for recovery of arrear rent of Rs. 11,100/- with future interest at the rate of 16% per annum, (d) for decree of pendente lite and future rent for the month of February, 1987 till the date of decree and till eviction, (e) for a decree of Rs. 10,000/- as damages and compensation with all future interest at the rate of 16% per annum, (f) decree for full costs of the suit and (g) decree for any other reliefs.

4. The defendant-appellant contested the suit by filing his written statement and, inter-alia, took a defence that the suit land was a government khas land when he took over possession of the same in the year 1967 and constructed a house thereon and started his motor garage in the name and style of M/s. Lalita Motor Works and, as such, the suit was barr