Saikia, C.J. (Acting).- This plaintiffs' second appeal is from the judgment of the learned Assistant District Judge, Barpeta affirming the judgment of the trial court and dismissing the appeal. The precise questions of law to be decided herein are the nature and extent of right, title and interest conferred by a "short lease" as defined in Rule 64(b) of the settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 3886, shortly, "the Regulation". 2. In Title Suit No. 13/73, the plaintiffs averred, inter alia, that their predecessor late Mahesh Chandra Das was granted a short lease in respect of the suit land, which was a Government Khas land, on the recommendation of the land Settlement Advisory Board by taking necessary premium. Late Mahesh raised a "Bhita" thereon and constructed an asbestos "Chali" with doors and windows and kept it under lock and key. After the death of Mahesh on 17.4.70, the plaintiffs inherited the suit land and the name of the plaintiff No. 1, Bangshidhar Das, was duly mutated by an order dated 21.2.71 as Karta of the family. On 20.10.70, the defendant Hargobinda Das trespassed upon the suit land, broke open the lock of the 'Chali' and started residing therein for which a Criminal case was instituted but the defendant was acquitted. Thereafter Hargobinda constructed a temporary house on the suit land and hence the plaintiffs instituted the Title suit No. 13/73 for declaration of title, khas possession and compensation. Hargobinda having died during the pendency of the suit, his heirs have been substituted. 3. The defendants averred, inter alia, that Hargobinda was a poor landless person and, along with others, he began to pos-,sess the suit land with his family and as he was not given settlement he filed an application on 3.10.56 to S.D.O. Barpeta for its settlement; and the S.D.O., Barpeta enquired and found his possession and recommended for settlement, and that Mahesh never possessed the suit land, and further that in N.R. Case No. 476/72-73 S.D.C. Barpeta cancelled the patta issued in the name of the plaintiffs. 4. 4. The trial Court framed 7 issues, the issue No. 5 being "Whether the plaintiff has got right, title and interest on the suit land ?" The trial Court held, inter alia, that the suit land was Barpeta town land and the father of Bangshidhar Das, plain­tiff No. 1 got a short lease in respect thereof; that the certified copy Ext-1 showed that it was issued in the year 1964-65 for a period of 3 years; that there was no evidence of the short lease having been renewed or converted into periodic; that under Rule 64(b) of the Settlement Rules, there was no right of in-beriberi beyond the period of that lease though the plaintiff's-name was mutated, and that Hargobinda trespassed upon and occupied the 'Chali' on 20.10.70. Accordingly, it held that no title to suit land passed to the plaintiffs by the mutation on 21.1.71, and the plaintiffs, therefore, had no right, title and' interest over the suit land and hence the suit was dismissed. 5. The learned Assistant District Judge in appeal having affirmed the judgment of the trial Court, on the same ground, the plaintiffs have come in second appeal. 6. Mr. D. K. Talukdar, the learned counsel for the appe­llants, submits that the short lease in respect of the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs' predecessor having been started long after the defendants trespassed and occupied the plaintiffs' 'Chali', the learned Courts below ought to have held that the plaintiffs had the right, title and interest over the suit land. A short lease, it is submitted, is not inferior, but superior to annual lease and until it is cancelled, the right under it con­tinues and the fact that non-renewal notice was later issued itself showed that the plaintiffs continued to have rights over the suit land and that granting of mutation proved the plain­tiff's possession over the suit land, and the suit ought to be decreed. 7. Mr. Y.K. Phukan, the learned counsel for the respon­dents, submits that the defendants started occupying the land 20 years back constructing home-stead and applied for settlement on 3.10.56 and he paid Tauzin revenue; and that the short lease itself was issued after the defendants occupied the lard; and that the non-renewal notice in N.R. Case No. 476/72-73 was issued prior to the filing of the instant suit. However, no settlement or mutation in favour of the defendants was made. 8. The first question to be decided therefore, is the nature and extent of right, title and interest conferred by a "short lease" as defined in Rule 64(b) of the Regulation. The next question is whether the short lease holder or for that matter his heir(s) will have any right, title and interest over the land after the expiry of the term of the lease where the land has not been resumed by the Government and whether on the stre­ngth of this title, he (or they) could obtain possession from a person who had forcibly dispossessed him (or them). 9. We first examine the nature of short lease. Section IV of the Settlement Rules framed under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886, shortly, 'the Rules' deals with the grant of lease and settlement of land revenue in respect of town land. As defined in Rule 64(b) "short lease" means "a lease which is granted for any period not exceeding three years, which confers upon the letter no right in the soil beyond a right of user for the period, and in particular which confers no right of inheritance beyond the period of the lease or of transfer". A short lease is to be distinguished from a "periodic lease". 10. Rule 64(c) defines a "periodic lease" for "town lands" to mean "a lease which is granted for more than three years, and which if granted for not less than ten years confers a permanent, heritable, and transferable right of use and occu­pancy in the land, subject always to the due payment of land-revenue and local taxes, ceases, or rates, to the reservation in favour of the Government of all quarries, mines, minerals, mineral oils and all buried treasure, to the absolute forfeiture of the lessee's interest in the land on his refusal to take the renewal of the lease on the expiry of its term, and to the special conditions of any engagement into which the land-holder may have entered with the Government. As defined in Rule 64(f) ''waste land" means unoccupied land, the property of the State Government which the Government have not disposed of by lease, grant, or otherwise. As defined in Rule 64(f) ''waste land" means unoccupied land, the property of the State Government which the Government have not disposed of by lease, grant, or otherwise. Under Rule 68, if a lease is granted it shall ordinarily be a periodic lease for town land running from the year in which it is granted to the terminal year of the town in question provided that the Deputy Commissioner may grant short leases for terms not exceeding three years of lands which it is not considered desirable to lease except for temporary purposes. When a short lease for town land is converted into a periodic lease a premium shall, unless the Government other­wise direct, be charged at a rate approved by State Government. In the instant case both the parties state that the land was originally waste land. 11. Prior to the addition of Section IV to the Settlement Rules town lands had not been assessed and settled under the Ordinary Settlement Rules of the province, but under the exe­cutive orders of the Chief Commissioner. The Rules for settle­ment of town lands were first issued vide notification No. 1411 R, dated the 12th October, 1897 and those had been revised and inserted in Section IV, Chapter I Part II of the Assam Land and Revenue Manual. Earlier the whole of the revenue derived from town lands was credited to land revenue but the Chief Commissioner had later sanctioned provincial grants being given to Municipality Stations or Union (whose jurisdictions were generally given terminus with the town limits) equal in amount to the land revenue actually collected from town lands. Barpeta was a Municipality and therefore town land. The asse­ssment of town lands had been of increasing importance in the province. Originally the only places which could be called towns were the various district and sub-divisional headquarters; and accordingly the Land and Revenue Regulation may be mentioned only of ''Civil stations" and excluded them from chapter II of the Regulation thereby barring them in the acquisition of land holder's rights in the normal way. At first it was not considered necessary to frame separate rules for the assessment of town lands and until 1897 assessment continued to be made under the executive orders of the Chief Commissi­oner. The rules first framed in 1897 had been revised and in­cluded in the manual as Section IV of the Settlement Rules in Part II. At first it was not considered necessary to frame separate rules for the assessment of town lands and until 1897 assessment continued to be made under the executive orders of the Chief Commissi­oner. The rules first framed in 1897 had been revised and in­cluded in the manual as Section IV of the Settlement Rules in Part II. These rules applied to lands included in any muni­cipality or "notified area" under the Assam Municipality Act and to any other lands to which they may be applied by noti­fication. Town lands available for settlement were either to be put to auction or else settled at a premium fixed by the Com­missioner in each case. 12. Chapter II of the Regulation which defined the rights over land of the different classes of owners, was not applica­ble to "Civil Stations", that is, to District and Sub-divisional Headquarter Stations. A special form of periodic lease was, however, issued for such lands, which conferred a permanent, heritable and transferable interest on the settlement-balder precisely similar to that enjoyed by the land-holder outside the Civil Stations. Town land which the Government did not desire to alienate could be settled on a short term lease for no more than 3 years which conveyed no rights beyond the term of the lease. Some town lands were, for special reasons granted out on annual lease only conferring no permanent property in the land leased. However, such leases were seldom issued. Chapter II of the Regulation as has been said, deals with Rights over land. Under section 6 no rights of any descrip­tion shall be deemed to have been, or shall be, acquired by any person over any land to which this Chapter applies, except the following : (a) rights of proprietors, land holders and settlement-holders other than land-holders, as defined in this Regu­lation, and other rights acquired in manner provided by this Regulation; (b) rights legally derived from any right mentioned in clause (a); (c) rights acquired under sections 26 and 27 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1877 (2); (d) rights acquired by any person as tenant under the Rent Law for the time being in force; Provided that nothing in this section shall be held to dero­gate from the terms of any lease granted by or on behalf of the Government. A short lease holders' right is a right acquired in manner provided by the Regulation. A short lease holders' right is a right acquired in manner provided by the Regulation. Section 8 deals with land holder. Generally speaking the holder of a lease granted by or on behalf of the Government, the term of which is not less than 10 years shall acquire the status of a landholder in respect of the land. Under Section 9 a landholder shall have a per­manent, heritable and transferable right of use and occupancy in his land subject to the conditions lal down there under. Under section 11 of the Regulation a settlement-holder who is not a land-holder, shall have no rights in the land held by him beyond such as are expressed in his settlement lease. Under section 12, the Government has the power to make the rules for the disposal of Government lands. In the case of any land over which no person has the rights of a proprietor, land-holder or settlement-holder under this Regulation, the State Govern­ment may make rules to provide for- (1) the disposal by way of grant, lease or otherwise of such land. The new Section IV of the Settlement Rules was substituted by Notification No. 44-R dated the 4th January, 1940. The instant lease which was issued in 1964-65 will be governed by this new Section. Under Rule 64(b) thereof, a short lease con­fers upon the lessee no right in the soil beyond a right of user for the period, and in particular it confers no right of inheritance beyond the period of the lease or of transfer. We have already seen that under section 11 of the Regulation a settlement-holder who is not a land-holder, shall have no rights in the land held by him such as are expressed in his settle­ment lease. The question naturally arises as to whether a short lease holder is settlement-holder who is not a land-holder. Under Rule 64(d), the settlement of a town means a special operation carried out under the provision of sections 17-42 of the Regu­lation for a formal revision of the land revenue demand of that town. The proviso to Rule 67 also says: "Provided that settlement of town land shall, unless the State Government otherwise direct, be subject to prior payment of premium at such rate as may be fixed by the State Government". The proviso to Rule 67 also says: "Provided that settlement of town land shall, unless the State Government otherwise direct, be subject to prior payment of premium at such rate as may be fixed by the State Government". As defined in Rule 2(f) of the Rules "Settlement" in these rules means the leasing of land at the disposal of the Government and includes the operation of survey, classification and report, preliminary to such leasing. As defined in Rule (2)(c) an annual lease means a lease granted for one year only and confers no right in the soil beyond a right of user for the year for which it is given. It confers no right of inheritance beyond the year of issue. It confers no right of transfer or of sub-letting and shall be liable to cancellation for any transfer or sub-letting even during the year of issue : Provided that the State Govern­ment may waive their right to cancel an annual lease and may allow its renewal automatically till such time as the State Gove­rnment may direct in those cases in which the land is mort­gaged to Government or to a State-sponsored Co-operative Society. As defined in Rule 2(d) a periodic lease, except in the case of town land, means a lease granted for a period of longer than one year, and in the case of town land, a lease for a period longer than three years. Subject to and so far as is consistent with any restrictions, conditions, and limitations con­tained therein, a periodic lease of town land the term of which is not less than ten years, conveys to the lessee the rights of a land-holder as defined in the Assam Land and Revenue Regu­lation. It can, therefore, be said that a short lease holder of town land is a settlement holder other than a land holder. Can it be stated that the rights of an annual lease holder in respect of other lands are similar to those of short lease holders of town lands ? Under Section 11 of the Regulation, a settle­ment holder who is not a land-holder shall have no rights in the land held by him beyond such as are expressed in his settlement lease. Under Section 11 of the Regulation, a settle­ment holder who is not a land-holder shall have no rights in the land held by him beyond such as are expressed in his settlement lease. A short lease of town land, as we have seen confers upon the lessee no right in the soil beyond a right of user for the period, and in particular confers no right of inheritance beyond the period of lease or of transfer, In case of short leases of town land the nature and extent of the right has thus been stated in the Rule itself. Though the periods of lease differ, in annual lease it being one year and in short lease it being three years, the basic rights conferred by an annual lease and a short lease do not materially differ. Holders of both are settlement holders and both the leases confer no right to the soil beyond the right of user for the period, and in particular, confers no right of inheritance beyond the period of lease or of transfer. Both are not periodic lea­ses. While an annual lease confers no right in the soil beyond the right of user for the year for which it is given a short lease confers no right in the soil beyond a right of user for the period of the short lease; and as an annual lease confers no right of inheritance beyond the year of issue a short lease confers no right of inheritance beyond the period of the lease. Annual lease confers no right of transfer or of sub-letting and shall be liable to cancellation for any transfer or sub-letting even during the year of issue unless the State Government wai­ves that right to cancel a short lease of town land also con­fers no right of transfer. The law as to continuity of annual lease in the absence of its express non-renewal is well settled. The annual settle­ment holder's land may be taken up for a public purpose in which case compensation is given to him for the loss or cost of removal of any house he may have been expressly or tacitly allowed by Government to built upon it, and also for the loss of any crops or trees he may have sown or planted, but he cannot claim compensation for the loss of the land itself. If on expiry of the term of settlement the Government does not require the land for any public purpose, he is ordinarily given re-settlement; the Settlement Officer is, however, under the Settlement Rules, at liberty to settle with any person he thinks fit, the ordinary practice being to settle with the person found in actual possession. But, although Government has not conferred upon the annual settlement-holder the right of transfer and in­heritance in respect of his holding there is no doubt that trans­fers of such holdings do actually take place. The Government does not concern itself to interfere with this practice. Where the previous settlement-holder does not come forward and apply for settlement, the Settlement Rules require the settlement to be made with the person in actual possession. To this extent, the Government may be said to have always recognised the transferability of annual holdings though no right of transfer on the part of the holder has been conferred. There is no reason why the same rule should not apply to short leases of town lands. The matter of renewal of annual leases is purely a matter within the discretion of the executive authority. An annual patta, until it is either cancelled or notice of non-renewal given to the patta-holder by the authorities concerned, confers good title upon the person to whom the patta is issued. In Prasanna Ram Pathak vs. Balabox Agarwala, AIR 1950 Assam 209, it has been held that the possession of a person other than the annual patta-holder is irrelevant. His possession might be that of a trespasser or a permissive possession emanating from the patta holder in which case obviously he cannot claim the rights of a patta-holder and claim that the annual patta is issued to him. It has been held in Madan Saikia vs. State of Assam, AIR 1951 Assam 91 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, the patta-holder is entitled to have his lease renewed for ano­ther year by grant of a fresh annual patta. The fact that no fresh grant of annual patta has been made to the patta-holders is wholly immaterial. (3) of the form of the annual lease is given by either party, the patta-holder is entitled to have his lease renewed for ano­ther year by grant of a fresh annual patta. The fact that no fresh grant of annual patta has been made to the patta-holders is wholly immaterial. It has been held in Sen Ram Baishya vs. Gopinath Sharma ILR 1 Assam 514 that where an annual pattadar has abandoned the land and severed all connection with it, the Revenue Authorities are justified in granting patta to other per­sons without serving notice on the annual pattadar. But when the holder of the annual patta has not abandoned the land, and is still claiming to possess the same, the Revenue Authorities ought to respect their solemn contracts and grant him settlement in the succeeding year unless they have served the prescribed notice to him. Again under an annual lease both parties have the right to terminate the lease by a non-renewal notice. The Government have no longer powers of non-renewal than the lessee. The lease is one which may be terminated by a notice as prescribed under the Rules. If this power is exercised under the rules the lessee cannot object. Un­less there is a valid non-renewal notice on the previous patta holder there can be no valid cancellation of the previous lease which is deemed to continue as was held in Theswar Bora vs. Umakanta Sarma, ILR 8 Assam 133. In Bahua Deka vs. Srikanta Deka ILR 1949(1) Assam 382 it has been held that as between a person living in the house with no relationship with the de­ceased annual pattadar and another person who is the successor in-interest of the annual pattadar, the successor-in-interest is the person to be preferred. In Molan Saikia Chaudary vs. State of Assam, ILR 1950(2) Assam 436 the appellants were annual patta folders but without the issue of any non-renewal notice, their pattas were withheld and proceedings for their eviction started. The appellants contended that as they were annual patta-holders whose pattas had not been terminated in accordance with law, they were not liable to be evicted according to Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules. The appellants contended that as they were annual patta-holders whose pattas had not been terminated in accordance with law, they were not liable to be evicted according to Rule 18 of the Settlement Rules. Government on the other hand contended that as after the expiration of their annual pattas in March, 1948 no further annual pattas were issued to them, the appellants' right to be in possession was extended for another year, i.e. up to March 1949, in terms of Cl 3 of the form of the annual lease. It was further contended that withholding of annual patta for the year amounted to non-renewal notice and that at the expiry of the year for which the patta was issued, the patta-holder would be liable to eviction. It was held that the Government's contention could not be accepted as the expression "this lease shall be renewed for another year" in Clause 3 of the annual lease did not mean "this lease shall be deemed to be in force for another year." It was further held that the words "this lease shall be renewed for another year" meant that the patta-holder was entitled to grant of a fresh annual patta for the ensuing year as in this case no non-renewal notice were given by either side the appellants were entitled to have their leases renewed for another year by grant of a fresh annual patta and the fact that no fresh grant of annual patta had been made to the appe­llants was wholly immaterial. It therefore, followed that up to end of March, 1951, the appellant were entitled to remain in occupation of the lands in question. Up to the end of March, 1951, the appellants could not be evicted, unless their pattas were lawfully cancelled under any of the other provisions of the Re­gulation. There is no reason why the same rule should not apply to short lease of town lands. It can, therefore, be safely held that a short lease was expected to be renewed unless the land-holder abandoned the land. Unless and until a short lease is cancelled by non-renewal the leaseholders right persists and the fact that any person has come into possession of the same would be immaterial for the purpose of continuation of the right of the short lease holder. Unless and until a short lease is cancelled by non-renewal the leaseholders right persists and the fact that any person has come into possession of the same would be immaterial for the purpose of continuation of the right of the short lease holder. A short lease holder's rights will be similar to those of annual lease holder though the duration of the short lease-is for 3 years. In the instant case Pw. 1 Bongsbidhar Das clearly deposed that his father Mohesh got settlement of the land on appli­cation as recommended by Land Advisory Board and after payment of premium the short lease was granted; and that after Mohesh's death Bongshidhar's name was mutated and they have been paying land revenue. Pw. 2, the Record Keeper, Barpeta-Town Extension Scheme, clearly deposed that Mohesh got settlement of suit land under Dag No. 133/154-Class 3 Basti land according to Draft Chitha of 1964. Pw. 3, Lot Mondal Shri Abubakar Sidique clearly deposed that Bongshidhai's name was mutated by right of inheritance by order dated 21.1.71 on Misc. Application No. 763/70-71. He deposed from the current chitha and said that the patta was still extant though in the comments column it was mentioned that civil case was going on, but Hargovinda was recorded as possessor without mention­ing date and year of occupation. There could, therefore, be no doubt that the plaintiff was entitled to declaration of his title by virtue of his short lease. The learned trial court clearly held while deciding issue No. 7 that there was no adverse possession against the plaintiff and that the suit was not barred by limitation. Both these findings were upheld by the lower appellate court. The plaintiff-appellant is, therefore, entitled to possession of the suit land by virtue of the same right as the defendants have failed to show that the plain­tiffs' right was extinguished by adverse possession of the defendants. In the result, this appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside and the suit is decreed both as to declaration of title and delivery of khas possession by remo­ving the defendants' thatched houses there from. We, however, refrain from granting any compensation or costs.