This matter was remanded to the D. C. for further information, because Mr. Barua for the Govt had contended that some of the applts were not concerned with the evic­tion proceedings at all; in other words, there were no eviction orders against them. The learned D. C. has now reported that from Encroachment Case No. 158 of 1948-49, it appears that the applts 10, 37, 42, 47-69 & 71-77 are not connected with the encroachment pro­ceedings, & that as there is no order of evic­tion against them, the question of appeal does not arise. (2) Mr. Goswami concedes that if there is no order of eviction against them, the question of appeal does not arise, but he states that as the learned D. C. has served notices of eviction upon them, they are entitled to appeal. The service of notices upon them, however, can be explained on the supposition that notices of eviction were sent to all persons in occupation of the lands in question without reference to the fact as to whether or not they were con­cerned with the encroachment proceedings. In view of the statement of the learned D. C. that there are no encroachment proceedings against these applts, namely, 10, 37, 42, 47-69 & 71-77, the question of their appeals does not arise. (3) As regards the other applts, Mr. Goswami has confined his address to the question of notice. Mr. Goswami on behalf of the applts other than applts 10, 37, 42, 47-69 & 71-77 has contended that as these applts were annual patta-holders whose pattas had not been ter­minated in accordance with the provisions of the Assam Land & Revenue Regulation, they were not liable to be evicted in pursuance of R. 18, Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land & Revenue Regulation, 1886. In my opinion, this contention must prevail. (4) The 1st para of R. 18 reads as follows: "Subject as hereinafter provided, the D. C. may eject any person from land over which no person- has acquired the rights of a pro­prietor, land-holder or settlement-holder." Mr. In my opinion, this contention must prevail. (4) The 1st para of R. 18 reads as follows: "Subject as hereinafter provided, the D. C. may eject any person from land over which no person- has acquired the rights of a pro­prietor, land-holder or settlement-holder." Mr. Barua for the Govt concedes that the applts were annual patta-holders, but he contends that as after the expiration of their annual pattas, in March, 1948, no further annual pattas were issued to them, the applts' right to be in possession was extended for another year, that is to say, up to March 1949, in terms of Cl. 3 of the form of the annual lease. Mr. Barua also does not dispute the position that where an annual patta has been issued to a person, unless a non-renewal notice, in accordance with Cl. 3 of the form of the annual lease, is given by either party, an annual patta must be issued for the ensuing year. But his contention is that the withholding of an annual patta for the ensuing year amounts to a notice of non-renewal & that, at the expiry of the year for which the patta was issued, the patta-holder would be liable to eviction. In my opinion, this contention of Mr. Barua can be sustained only if for the words "this lease shall be renewed for another year" in Cl. 3 of the annual lease, the words "this lease shall be deemed to be in force for another year" were substituted. The words "this lease shall be renewed for another year" mean that the patta-holder is entitled to a grant of a fresh annual patta for the ensuing year. Mr. Barua has frankly stated that precisely this is what is actually done when a non-renewal notice is not given. It seems to me that this practice is in conformity with the provision "this lease shall be renewed for another year" in Cl. 3 of the form of annual lease. (5) It is conceded in this case that no non-renewal notices were given by either side; the applts were, therefore, entitlea ro have their leases renewed for another year by grant of a fresh annual patta. The fact that no fresh grant of annual pattas has been made to the applts, is wholly immaterial. (5) It is conceded in this case that no non-renewal notices were given by either side; the applts were, therefore, entitlea ro have their leases renewed for another year by grant of a fresh annual patta. The fact that no fresh grant of annual pattas has been made to the applts, is wholly immaterial. It follows then that up to the end of March 1951, the applts are entitled to remain in occupation of the lands in question. (6) Mr. Barua has invited me to state in my order that it is open to the Govt to issue no renewal notices in February 1951, terminating the annual pattas of the applts & thereafter to evict them. It is unnecessary for me to accede to this request. If the law permits the Govt to terminate the applts' leases in accord­ance with the Regulation, it is not for me to give any directions. (7) The result is that the appeal is allowed. Up to the end of March 1951, the applts can­not be evicted, unless their Pattas are lawfully cancelled under any of the other provisions of the Regulation, (8) The Rule is made absolute. V.B.B. Rule made absolute.