Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

The appellants are the plaintiffs in TS No. 5/2001, and they are the defendants in TS No. 65/2007, which was a counter-claim filed by the defendant No. 2 in TS No. 5/2001.

2. These two appeals under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code are directed against the concurrent finding recorded by both the learned courts below.

a. RSA No. 182/2017 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2017 passed by the learned court of Civil Judge, Tinsukia, in T.A. No. 8/2014, by which the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2014 passed by the learned Munsiff No.1, Tinsukia, in TS No. 5/2001 was upheld. By the said judgment, the suit was dismissed.

b. RSA No. 177/2017 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2017 passed by the learned court of Civil Judge, Tinsukia, in T.A. No. 9/2014, by which the judgment and decree dated 24.02.2014 passed by the learned Munsiff No. 1, Tinsukia, in TS No. 65/2007 was upheld. By the said judgment, the defendants (i.e. plaintiffs in TS No. 5/2001) were held liable to be evicted from the suit premises described in Schedule-B of the plaint.

3. The sole respondent herein had appeared by filing a caveat. T