Eviction of tenants requires a mandatory notice under Section 11 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955, failure of which renders the eviction suit not maintainable.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

Heard Mr. S.P. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellants.

2. This is a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) whereby the judgment dated 14.09.2009 passed by the court of learned District Judge, Dibrugarh, Assam in Title Appeal No.14/2007 allowing and reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.07.2007 passed by the learned Munsiff No.2, Dibrugarh in T.S. No.18/2006.

3. In the plaint, the respondent Dinanath Mahato claimed that he is a lawful owner of a plot of land measuring slightly more than 2 Kathas covered by P.P. No.38 of New Amlopattay Ward at Dibrugarh having distinct boundaries. The appellants claimed to have been occupying that land as monthly tenants for a period of three years. The rent was Rs.100/- per year. The appellants had constructed kutcha temporary houses and agreed to vacate the land whenever demanded by the respondent.

4. After the expiry of three years, the appellants requested the respondent to allow them to continue to possess the land on the same terms and conditions. But the respondent refused to allow them to continue their possession over the suit land. Therefore, the respondent filed the suit praying for recovery of vacant possession of their land by evicting the appellants therefrom.

5. The appellants being the defendants contested the case by filing written statement. They claimed that on 25.09.2000, they purchased the suit land from Brojomohan Mahato and Parama Mahato by executing a registered sale deed dated 25.09.2000. The appellants claimed to be the absolute owner of the suit land.

6. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:

i. Whether the suit is maintainable in law and on facts?

ii. Whether the sale deed no.1704 of 2000 executed by the defendant nos.3 and 4 in favour of the defendant nos.1 and 2 is illegal?

iii. Whether the plaintiff is the owner of the suit land?

iv. Whether there was any lease agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant nos.1 and 2?

v. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief as prayed for?

7. At the time of hearing, the respondent/plaintiff examined two witnesses and the appellants examined four witnesses.

8. The trial court held that the respondent failed to prove that the suit land was handed over to the appellants on lease. The trial court also held that the respondent failed to prove that he is the owner of the suit land.

9. The appellants exhibited the sale deed dated 25.09.2000 as Ext.A. The trial court, on the basis of admission made by the respondent in evidence, held the Ext.A to be a genuine document. Accordingly, the trial court dismissed the suit of the respondent.

10. The respondent filed an appeal before the District Judge. The appellate court held that the suit of the respondent is under Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 and is covered by Section 5 of the said Act. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the suit of the respondent was decreed.

11. The present regular second appeal was admitted for hearing upon the following substantial questions of law:

i. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable in the absence of any notice under Section 11 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955?

ii. Whether the appellants could prove (Ext.A) the sale deed as required under the law and whether they have acquired any title by virtue of such sale deed?

12. At this stage, a brief visit to Section 11 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 (for short, hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1955” would be fruitful. It reads as under:

“11. Notice of ejectment suit – No suit for ejectment except for arrears of rent shall be instituted until