IMPORTANT POINT
A second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure must involve substantial questions of law, and unregistered tenancy agreements cannot establish non-evictable rights.

JUDGMENT :

MRIDUL KUMAR KALITA, J.

1. Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Ms. S. Todi, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. S.K. Ghosh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 6.

2. This regular second appeal has been registered on filing of a memo of appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 by the appellants, impugning the judgment and order dated 12.02.2021, passed by learned Civil Judge No. 2 Cachar, Silchar in Misc. Appeal No.18/2014, whereby the judgment and order dated 30.09.2014, passed in Misc. Case No. 129/2009 in Title Execution Case No. 17/2009 by the Court of learned Munsiff No.1 Cachar was affirmed.

3. It is pertinent to mention here in that initially, this appeal was registered as second appeal against order i.e., SAO No. 01/2021, however, as the instant appeal is against a decree which arise out of a proceeding under Order 21, Rule 97 and 101 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, as in terms of Rule 103, the order in such proceeding is to be treated as a decree, by order dated 20.26.2024, this Court directed the Registry to re-register the appeals as Regular Second Appeal and accordingly, same was done.

4. The facts relevant for consideration of the instant appeal, in brief, are as follows: -

i. In their petition, filed under Order 21 Rule 97 and 99 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, before the Executing Court, in Misc. Case No. 129/2009, which arose out of Title Execution Case No. 17/2009, the appellants, as petitioners, contended that the suit land along with one two storied old Assam type structure standing thereon was originally owned by Sri Sri Mahaprabhu Bigraha. Thereafter, Ram Niranjan Singha and Mahim Chandra Suklabaidya, had taken the said suit land on rent in the year, 1945. It was contended that both of them had constructed permanent houses thereon and the name of Ram Niranjan Singha was mutated in the municipal holding as owner and Mahim Chandra Suklabaidya, was shown as an occupier in the said home. It was further contended that as per mutual arrangement between Ram Niranjan Singha and Mahim Chandra Suklabaidya, Ram Niranjan Singha relinquished his lease rights in respect of his share of the land in favour of Mahim Chandra Suklabaidya, on receipt of valuable consideration. It was further contended that the landlord accepted Mahim Chandra Suklabaidya, as his tenant by accepting rent and issuing rent receipt to him. It was further contended that Mahim Chandra Suklabaidya, constructed permanent structure over the suit land and thus acquired non-evictable occupancy right over the suit land under Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955.

ii. It was further contended that the predecessor-in- interest of the appellants, namely, Mani Lal Sahani, who was a businessman was inducted in the suit premises in the early part of 1950 by Ram Niranjan Singha as a licensee. It was also contended that in the year, 1955 Ram Niranjan Singha left the suit land, handed over the possession of the suit premises to Mani Lal Sahani and who paid rent to the landlord and also paid municipal taxes regularly and carried on his business from the suit premises in the name of M/s Mani Lal Sahani, Janiganj. It was also contended that on death of Mahim Chandra Suklabaidya his legal heirs executed an unregistered deed of conveyance in favour of Mani Lal Sahani transferring the right, title and interest over the suit land occupied by them and delivered the possession to Mani Lal Sahani. It was also contended that Mani Lal Sahani carried on business of restaurant in the suit premises and after his death his legal heirs, that is, the present appellants came into the possession of the suit premises. It was contended by the appellants before the Executing Court that they were not the employees of Bindeswari Singh and paid annual rent to the landlord and municipal taxes regularly and accordingly, pra