L.N.Mittal, J.

1. This is second appeal by plaintiffs, who have been unsuccessful in both the courts below.

2. Plaintiffs filed suit alleging that they along with proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 have become owners in possession of the suit land measuring 29 kanals 07 marlas, having acquired occupancy tenancy rights therein. It was alleged that their predecessor Doonger (father of plaintiffs No. 1 to 7 and defendants No. 2 and 3 and husband of plaintiff No. 8) had been inducted as tenant over the suit land by Gram Panchayat - predecessor-ininterest of defendant No. 1 (Municipal Corporation of Faridabad) about 50 years before the filing of the suit, on payment of nominal rent. After the death of Doonger, plaintiffs and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 continued to cultivate the suit land. When Doonger was inducted as tenant, it was promised that he would never be ejected from the suit land nor rate of rent would be increased. The land was not cultivable at that time. Doonger made it cultivable. Diesel engine was also installed.

3. Only defendant No. 1 contested the suit. Various preliminary objections were raised. Averments made by the plaintiffs were denied. It was pleaded that the suit land vested in Gram Panchayat under the Punjab Village Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1961 and the same became property of Gram Panchayats successor Faridabad Complex Administration and now, the present successor Municipal Corporation, Faridabad (defendant No. 1) is owner of the suit land. Plaintiffs and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 have no right or interest in the suit land. Plaintiffs were in illegal possession of the suit land and have been ordered to be ejected therefrom under the Haryana Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1972 (in short - the Eviction Act). Defendant No. 1 is, therefore, taking possession of the suit land in due course of law.

4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, vide judgment and decree dated 22.05.2004, dismissed the plaintiffs suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, vide judgment and decree dated 31.10.2006. Feeling aggrieved, the instant second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

6. It is undisputed that earlier Gram Panchayat - predecessor-ininterest of defendant No. 1 was owner of the suit land. Perusal of the revenue record produced in evidence reveals that Doonger has been recorded to be in possession of the suit land since jamabandi for the year 1954-55 till filing of the suit. His possession is recorded as gair marusi (non-occupancy tenant), on payment of Rs. 72/- as lease money for one year.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that under Section 5 (2) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 , plaintiffs and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 have acquired occupancy tenancy rights in the suit land and have, therefore, become owners thereof in view of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952. Reliance has also been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Muni Ram and others v. Phullia reported as 1974 P.L.J. 369 to contend that promise not to eject the tenant can be presumed as the tenancy has continued for 44 years before the filing of the suit without there being any increase in rate of rent. In view of the aforesaid judgment, certainly presumption can be raised that there was implied promise not to eject the tenant i.e. Doonger - predecessor-in-interest of the plaintiffs and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3. However, the question arises whether other conditions for acquiring occupancy tenancy rights have been satisfied by plaintiffs and proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 or not. To determine the same, Section 5 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 is reproduced hereunder :-

"5. Tenants having right of occupancy - (1) A tenant - (a) who at the commencement of this Act has, for