JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. D.N. Bhattacharyya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel, assisted by Ms. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The predecessor in interest of the present petitioner, as plaintiff, instituted Title Suit No. 64/1985 in the court of learned Munsiff No. 1, Sivasagar for ejectment of the defendant-respondents from the plot of land measuring 2K situated in Nazira town and for realisation of arrear rent. The suit was under the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The defendant-respondents filed written statement and thereafter the following issues were framed:

1. Is there any cause of action for the suit?

2. Whether (a) plaintiff's suit is barred by Limitation, (b) and the defendants acquired right title and interest in the suit land by way of adverse possession?

3. Whether there is the relationship of landlord and tenant between the plaintiff and defendants?

4. Whether the defendants are defaulter?

5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for?

6. To what reliefs the parties are entitled?

7. Whether the suit is barred by estopel?

The defendant-respondents were irregular in taking steps in the said suit and as a result, the learned trial court decreed the suit ex parte by deciding all the issues in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner except issue No. 7 vide judgment and decree dated 29.7.1993.

3. The defendant-respondents thereafter preferred Title Appeal No. 9/1993 in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Sivasagar. The said appeal was dismissed with cost vide judgment and decree dated 28.9.1993. Thereafter, the defendant-respondents preferred Second Appeal No. 125/1993 which was disposed of vide judgment dated 22.2.1999. The Second Appellate Court while disposing of the said appeal came to the finding that the defendant-respondents as tenant constructed permanent structures on the land and as such they are entitled to compensation under section 5(1)(b) of the Act and finally remanded back the same by holding as follows:

“5. For deciding this question of compensation only this appeal shall go back to the Appellate Court, i.e., Assistant District Judge, Sibsagar and the learned Asstt. District Judge if necessary may take evidence and decide the question of compensation payable to the tenant. The Appellate Court shall take only that aspect of the matter and other question shall not be reopened before the Appellate Court. Once this compensation is determined, time shall be fixed for the payment of the same and thereafter on payment of the same the decree may be executed against the tenant. The Appellate Court shall determine this aspect of the matter as early as possible as it is a suit of 1985. Both the parties shall appear before the Appellate Court on 31st March, 1999 to receive other instruction.

6. This disposes of the second appeal.”

4. The defendant-respondents thereafter filed a petition being No. 480/1999 dated 23.3.1999 before the learned First Appellate Court for passing necessary order allowing them to deposit rent upto the year 1999 under section 5(3) of the Act without prejudice to their right. Again on 31.3.1999, the defendant-respondents filed another application being Petition No. 533/1999 praying for an order to accept the rent from the year 1982 to 1999.

5. The aforesaid two petitions came up for consideration by the learned First Appellate Court. The said court below rejected the said two petitions on 19.5.1999 by holding that the Second Appellate Court directed it to decide only the question of compensation and not to reopen any other question.

6. The defendant-respondents thereafter preferred a revision application being CRP No. 191/1999 before this court challenging the order dated 19.5.1999 passed by the learned First Appellate Court. The said revision application was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 5.9.2003 by allowing the said revision application