Das, J. — This appeal arises out of a common judgment and decree passed in Title Appeal No. 2/69 and Title Appeal No. 3 of 1969 by the learned District Judge, Tezpur. The respondent filed a Title Suit No. 6/68 for eviction of defendant No. I (appellant herein) from the suit premises with delivery of khas possession, arrear rent and mesne profit and compensation. The ca«e of the plaintiff is that she is the absolute owner of the land and house described in the schedule of the plaint situated at Rangapara Hindugaon ia the district of Soaitpar. T.\s plaintiff claims that she purchased the suit land and premises from proforma defendants 2 to 5 who were the original owners and possessors of the suit land and pre­mises by a registered sale deed dated 17.12.58 and she took delivery of possession of the same through her husband Shri Prakash Chakraborty. The defendant No. I has been occupying the suit house on the basis of an arrangement with husband of the plaintiff with her knowledge and consent. The tenancy with defendant No. I commenced cm and from 1962 and he has been in occupation of the suit house as monthly tenant on payment of rent of Rs. 42-50 per month. According to the plaintiff the tenancy commenced on and from first day of every English Calender month. It was stipulated that the defendant should not use the suit premises except for shop purpose and was prohibited to sub-let the same nor he was allowed to change the structure of the premises. It was specifically told to the defendant that any breach of the conditions, the defendant would be liable for eviction from the suit premises. The further case of the plaintiff is that the defendant defaulted to pay due rent inspite of demand made to him and as such the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendant in the month of October, 1965 to pay the rent but the defendant again defaulted in payment of rent. It is further stated by the plaintiff that the defendant, without taking any permission either from the plaintiff or from her husband illegally pulled down a portion of the suit premises and started raising unauthorised construction in spite of protest made by the plaintiff not to do so. It is further stated by the plaintiff that the defendant, without taking any permission either from the plaintiff or from her husband illegally pulled down a portion of the suit premises and started raising unauthorised construction in spite of protest made by the plaintiff not to do so. Therefore, the plaintiff issued another notice dated 8.7.66 through her Advocate requesting the defendant to vacate the suit premises by the end of July, 1966 and to deliver vacant possession of the suit premises. The notice was tendered to the defendant on 12.7.66 but he refused the accept the same. According to the plaintiff the arrear rent from the month of November, 1965 to July, 1966 was due from the defendant. On the aforesaid allegations the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant for eviction and for arrear rent and damages including mesne profit. The principal defendant No. I who is the appellant herein contested the suit by filing written statement. He denies the allegations of being a tenant under the plaintiff in res­pect of the suit house on monthly rental of Rs. 42.50 as alleged in the plaint. The defendant's plea is that the house and structure standing on the suit liad was constructed by him with his own money. His defence is that he took the suit land on lease from the husband of the plaintiff from the month of January, 1961 on annual rental of Rs. 50/- and after taking possession of vacant land, improved the suit land and constructed permanent structure and dug a tube well. According to the defendant he paid rent upto the year 1965. The further plea of defendant is that after constructions of the house in the year 1961, he made addition and alteration according to his need by spending a huge amount. His further case is that the area under his occupation is 48-28' and he constructed the permanent structure on the suit land without any objection being raised by the plaintiff or her husband and the pucca construction was made in 1961 immediately after taking the suit land on lease. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court formulated and framed as many as following 6 (six) issues :- 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ? 2. On the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court formulated and framed as many as following 6 (six) issues :- 1. Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form ? 2. Whether there is any relationship of landlord and tenant between plaintiff & defendant in respect of the suit premises ? 3. Whether suit premises belongs to the defendant as alleged in the written statement ? 4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to khas possession of the suit premises '/ 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to arrear rent and mesne profit as prayed for ? 6. Whether legally valid ejectment notice was duly served ? 2. Both the parties led their evidence in support of their respective contentions and exhibited few documents in course of trial. The learned trial Court considered the evidence ®f the parties both oral as well as documentary and decreed the suit on contest in part and only for ejectment of the defendant from the suit land and for delivery of khas possession thereof with proportionate costs of the suit. The defendant was allowed three months' time to remove all the structures standing on the suit land and the plaintiff was directed to pay an amount of Rs. 500/- to the defendant towards the cost of the removal of the structures. The learned trial Court also decreed the arrear rent to the extent of Rs. 29.12 p against the defendant. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the defendant preferred an appeal in the Court of learned District Judge, Tezpur being Title Appeal No. 2/69. The plaintiff also pre­ferred an appeal being Title Appeal No. 3/69 in deciding the relevant issues against the plaintiff. Both the appeals being preferred in the Court of District Judge, Darrang at Tezpur the same were heard analogously and disposed of by a common judgment and decree. The learned appellate Court did not find any material to interfere with the judgment and decree those passed by the learned trial Court and disposed of both the appeals, namely Title Appeal No. 2/69 and Title Appeal No. 3/69 of the defendants and the plaintiff respectively by affirming the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. Hence this appeal by the defendant. 3. Hence this appeal by the defendant. 3. The appeal was posted for hearing before the learned Single Judge and after hearing the appeal for several days, this appeal has ultimately been referred for decision by a larger Bench. The point of reference is quoted here below : "The moot point for consideration in this case is whether the land in respect of which there is a tenancy and structure thereon stands, the tenant owning the structure shall be entitled to the protection of Section 5 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955, short, 'the Act', if the land in question is included with the 'Urban Area' subsequently and not when the tenancy was created or the suructure was erected; The aforesaid proposition of law came up before the learned Single Judge for the first time and it was felt that a decision on this proposition of law shall have a far reading affect on larger section of the people whose right to live in such houses and enjoy possession of such land depends, However, the question touches a legal and important of the parties. The reference is made for a decision by a larger Bench with regard to the relevant provisions contained in the Asiam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955, for short 'the Act' and the interpretation of sections 1,2,3 and 5 of the Act. Therefore in view of the reference we are required to answer the moot point as to whether a tenant can sought to his protection from eviction by taking recourse to section 5 of the aforesaid Act who owns and possesses a permanent structures if the land on which the structure stands is included within the urban area subsequently and not at the time when the tenancy was created and a permanent structure was erected immediately after the commencement of the tenancy of land. 4. The object and scope of the Act is meant for regulating the relationship between land-lord and tenant in certain respect if the land falls within the urban areas of the State of Assam. This relates to non-agricultural lands in the urban areas of the State of Assam. 4. The object and scope of the Act is meant for regulating the relationship between land-lord and tenant in certain respect if the land falls within the urban areas of the State of Assam. This relates to non-agricultural lands in the urban areas of the State of Assam. Provisions of section 1 of the Act provides that the Act extends to the urban area in the State of Assam and- "to any other areas which have been or may hereafter be declared town lands under clause (a; of Rule 64 of the Settle­ment Rules made under the Assam Land and Revenue Regula­tion, 1886 (Regulation I of 1886) or the Assam Land Revenue Re-assessment Act, 1936 (Assam Act VIII of 1936). On bara perusal of the provision of section 1, sub-sec. (2), clause (b) of the Act it is apparently clear that the provision of the Act is attracted only in urban areas that was declared even before the coming into force of this Act and also subsequent declaration of an area as town lands under the provisions of Settlement Rules of Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 or the Assam Land Revenue Re-assessment Act, 1936. Therefore, the question is posed that if any permanent structure existed prior to coming into force of this Act in any area where there was no notification declaring the area as town land the provisions of this Act would be attracted and if so since when ? By virtue of the Act the State Government is empowered to issue any notification signifying its intention to declare any specified area which was not already declared as town land to be a town land for the purpose of this Act. Unless the notification is published with respect to the area which was not specified to be a "town land", the provisions of this Act shall not apply. If the provision of section 2 is read along with the provision of section 1 of the Act, it would be apparently clear that notwithstanding anything contained in any contract or in any law for the time being in force, the provision of the Act shall apply to all non-agricultural tenancies whether created before or after the date on which the Act comes into force. The provision of section 2 has provided a proviso specifying in which case the provision of this Act is not applicable. The provision of section 2 has provided a proviso specifying in which case the provision of this Act is not applicable. Therefore, the relevant provisions of the Act shall be attracted in case of non-agricultural tenancy in any urban area whether before or after the Act came into force. In the present case the permanent structure was constructed in an area not notified or declared to be an urban area or 'town land' for the purpose of extending the provisions of this Act. The Assam Non-Agricultural Tenancy Act came into existence in 1955 so far it relates to urban areas and the Act was held to have retrospective effect as regards the applicability of the relevant provisions are concerned. 5. In the present case at hand the permanent structure was constructed at Rangapara which was a village and not declared as "town land". Though the Act came into force in 1955 yet, Rangapara was not declared as town laud within the meaning of the relevant provisions of this Act. Therefore, by virtue of provisions in section 1, sub section (2), clause (b) of the Act would be applicable as and when a certain area would be declared either as town land or an urban land as the case may be and not earlier. It is settled law that all rules of interpretation are meant to give effect to the dominant purpose or intention of the legislation and to advance the remedy which it seeks to offer. There should be, therefore, no academic or rigid interpretation of the provisions of the Act. The law reflects and registers the growing needs of the people and their varying moods. But where the provision of law is so clear which does not require further interpretation and the object of the provision of law itself is apparently clear, no interpretation is needed in that aspect of the matter relating to the applicability of the provision of law. The Court shall accept its clear meaning and no interpretation is required if such a meaning is clear and unambiguous. The Court shall accept its clear meaning and no interpretation is required if such a meaning is clear and unambiguous. The sole object of the Act as it appears was to regulate the tenancy of the 'urban areas' which relates to the land and the permanent structures thereon if built by a tenant within the statutory period as prescribed under section 5 of the Act within the purview of its clause (a) and (b) as prescribed therein, section 5(1) (a) of the Act prescribes that if under the terms of a contract entered into between a landlord and tenant whether before or after the commencement of this Act, a tenant is entitled to build, and has actually built a permanent structure within 5 years from the date of contract on the land of tenancy either for residential or for business purposes with the knowledge and acquiescence of the landlord, the tenant shall not be evicted by the landlord from the tenancy except on the ground of non-payment of rent. The provisions of clause (a) of Section 5 (li clearly speaks the term for construction of permanent structure and for protection from eviction in case of construction of structure on the land under the tenancy "Whether before or after the commencement of this Act." This refers only to the urban are-is and not any land which was not included either as urban land or town land by any notification of the State Government at the time of coming into force of this Act. If any land is declared as town land or urban land as the case may be, after commencement of this Act and the tenancy if created and permanent structure thereon is constructed within the meaning of section 5 of the Act, the tenant shall be protected from eviction except on the ground of non-payment of rent. The benefit given under this Act to those tenants who built a permanent structure within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act in Urban Area or within the notified town land within a period of 5 years of such contract of tenancy immediately after the area was declared either as town land or urban land. The benefit given under this Act to those tenants who built a permanent structure within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act in Urban Area or within the notified town land within a period of 5 years of such contract of tenancy immediately after the area was declared either as town land or urban land. The provision of the said Act cannot have any retrospective effect in case where the tenant had already constructed permanent structure on the land under his tenancy even within 5 years in the area not included as urban area or notified as town land. The provision of this Act would only be applica­ble in case where the area was subsequently notified either as urban area or town land on and from the date of declaration when it was so declared as urban land or town land not from any earlier date. The provision of this Act would only be applicable on and from the date of notification of the area declaring as 'town land' to render protection of a tenant in case a permanent structure is constructed within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act after such notification declaring that area as town land or urban land. If any authority is needed we may refer to Rafiquennessa vs. Lal Bahadur Chetri reported in AIR 1964 SC 1511 . In paragraph 7 of the aforesaid case it was observed : "The Act was passed by the Assam Legislature in order to regulate in certain respects the relationship between landlord and tenant in respect of non-agricultural lands in the urban areas of the State of Assam". It was further held that provision of the Act clearly indicates that the legislature wanted to beneficent provisions enacted by it to take within their protection not only leases executed prior to the operation of the Act. The Act has clearly vested a right on the tenants against his landlord who had let out their urban properties to the tenant prior to the date of the Act. Therefore, the provision of the Act was made retrospective only in the case of existing permanent structure in urban areas and no further. The subsequent notification declaring any area as ('town land' or "urban land" for the purpose of application of this Act would only operate prospectively without any retrospective effect. Therefore, the provision of the Act was made retrospective only in the case of existing permanent structure in urban areas and no further. The subsequent notification declaring any area as ('town land' or "urban land" for the purpose of application of this Act would only operate prospectively without any retrospective effect. Therefore, the provision of this Act would only be applicable after notification of those areas declared as urban or town land and be applicable in case of a permanent structure already existing in the urban land prior to coming into force of this Act and not to those land which would be declared or notified as town land or urban land on subsequent date after the coming into force of this Act. 6. We have heard Mr. S. K. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. J. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the respondent. No. 1 at length. On the above point we are of the opinion that the provisions of this Act can not have retrospective effect in respect of any land which was subsequently declared as town land after coming into force of the Act. In other words the provisions of the Act shall not be applicable for the land prior to the notification declaring the area as urban area or town land'. In the present case, admittedly, Rangapara village was not included as urban areas or town land while the Act came into force. Though it has been urged by Mr. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant that Rangapara village was subsequently declared as town land but no such notification was produced to us at the time of hearing though subsequently it was produced before us and we heard the learned counsel of both the parties on this notification. In any case we are inclined to hold that the defendant is not entitled to take shelter under any provision of Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 to claim protection under Section 5 of the Act. Reference on this point is accordingly answered. 7. Mr. In any case we are inclined to hold that the defendant is not entitled to take shelter under any provision of Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955 to claim protection under Section 5 of the Act. Reference on this point is accordingly answered. 7. Mr. S. K. Sen, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the findings of the learned appellate Court to the effect that the defendant-appellant never elected to seek protection under the provision of the Act though the right was accrued to him during the pendency of the original suit and as such cannot be allowed to take the plea of protection under Section 5 of the Act is absolutely erroneous and on misinterpretation of the provision of law. We have already answered the reference to the effect that protection u/s. 5 of the Act was not available to the defendant in view of the fact that the provision of the Act cannot be extended in retrospective manner in an area which was declared as town land or urban land by a subsequent notification even though there existed permanent structure on the land. The next question as urged by Mr. Sen. learned counsel for the appellant is that the relief as claimed by the plaintiff in the suit is not consistent with the averments of the plaint and as such no decree could have been passed for ejectment of the defendant from the suit premises and also for recovery of khas possession of land. 8. Mr. J. P. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has on the other hand submitted that in a suit for eviction of the defendant from the premises with delivery of khas possession the relief can be granted as prayed for even though the plaintiff pleaded that the defendant was a tenant in respect of the suit premises and the tenant may be made liable to be evicted on any of the grounds as enumerated under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. The averments made in para 4 of the plaint clearly shows that the defendant was a tenant in respect of the suit house at the monthly rent of Rs. 42.50 p. from 1962. The averments made in para 4 of the plaint clearly shows that the defendant was a tenant in respect of the suit house at the monthly rent of Rs. 42.50 p. from 1962. In paragraph 8 of the plaint the plaintiff averred that without the consent and permission of the plaintiff or her husband the defendant entirely removed the existing C. I. sheet roof of the suit premises. In paragraph 6 of the plaint the plaintiff has made an averment that the defendant No. 1 without taking permission from the plaintiff or her husband illegally pulled down a portion of the standing house and started raising unauthorised construction inspite of positive direction and protest from the plaintiff not to do so. In the written statement, the defendant has made an averment that he took the suit land on lease at an annual rental of Rs. 50/- from the husband of the plaintiff and had constructed permanent structure and dug a tube well, According to the defendant he constructed the structure and made addition and alteration of the building according to his necessity as far back as in 1961. The area of the land is only 2/4 lechas whereon structure was constructed by the plaintiff and let out to the defendant. Now as regards the nature of tenancy both the parties led evidence and those evidence were discussed by learned Courts below and the concurrent findings of both the Courts are that the defendant was a tenant not in respect of the suit premises as alleged in the plaint but in respect of the suit land. The further finding is that there is nothing on record to show that the defendant-appellant could take protection u/s. 5 of the aforesaid Act in view of the nature of the evidence on records. At no point of time the defendant took the plea of protection except raising in the appeal. However, the learned appellate Court, on consideration of evidence on record having found that the tenancy was dulv terminated and the plaintiff was entitled to a decree on the facts of the case and on the evidence on record, this Court shall not interfere with those findings of fact based on proper consideration of the evidence on record. The only question raised in this appeal is whether the defendant could take plea of protection u/s. 5 of the Act ? The only question raised in this appeal is whether the defendant could take plea of protection u/s. 5 of the Act ? This question has already been answered by us and we are constrained to h')ld that both the Courts below having held that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for khas possession of the suit land and the findings being based on evidence on record we cannot interfere with those finding of facts. The appeal, therefore, has no force and accordingly it is dismissed. 8. We have considered the cross-objection filed by the plaintiff-respondent. We do not find any material to allow the cross-objection which is also based on finding of facts. The legal point having been considered while answering the reference, the cross-objection also stands dismissed. But in view of the facts and circumstances of the case we leave the parties to bear their own costs. Phukan J. — I agree.