JUDGMENT P.G. Agarwal, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Ali, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2. This is the second occasion when the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present civil revision. The relevant facts are that the opposite party/Plaintiff Sri Upen Medhi instituted a title suit No. 126/95 for eviction of the Defendant stating inter alia that the Plaintiff had purchased the suit premises from the erstwhile landlord and the Defendant was a tenant under him on monthly rent. The Defendant had accepted the Plaintiff as his landlord and paid rent for some period and thereafter defaulted. 3. The Petitioner/Defendant contested the proceeding stating that the suit premises were purchased by him in the year 1985 although he has admitted that prior to that he was a tenant in respect of the suit premises under the erstwhile landlord. The Petitioner also claimed that the suit premises are not covered by the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act (for short the Act). The suit was decreed as prayed for whereupon, appeal was filed being Title Appeal No. 12/90 by the Defendant but no relief was granted to the Defendant whereupon Civil Revision No. 383/91 was preferred before this Court. The said revision was disposed of by order, dated 19.2.96 and this Court provided as follows: The crucial point as to whether the suit land falls within the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act inasmuch as to whether the area in question falls within an 'Urban Area'. No such notification under the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 was produced and found before the Court below. No other notification as required under Section 1(2)(a) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act was also shown. The matter was dealt in most casual manner. It also appears that the learned appellate Court has not dealt with the appeal as is required under the law. The appeal contained both questions of fact and law, which requires full consideration of the appellate Court. The judgment is not in conformity with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, 1 set aside the judgment of the learned appellate Court and remit the matter to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. The appellate Court is also directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law. The judgment is not in conformity with Order 41 Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, 1 set aside the judgment of the learned appellate Court and remit the matter to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law. The appellate Court is also directed to decide the appeal in accordance with law. The appellate Court is also directed to decide the issue viz. whether the suit premises in Dhupdhara falls in an Urban Area within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act, 1972. 4. Accordingly, the matter was again heard by the District Judge, Goalpara and on the strength of notification dated 21.3.86 Ext. 1 A, the appellate Court held that the suit premises falls under Dhupdhara town and hence the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act are attracted and accordingly the appeal was dismissed. Hence the present revision. 5. We have perused the said notification Ext. 1 A, the relevant portion of which reads as follows: NOTIFICATION Dated Dispur the 21st March 86 No. RSR. 12/83/12. In exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-section( 1) of the Section 3 of the Assam Revenue Re-assessment Act, 1936, the Governor of Assam is pleased to declare the Areas included within the boundaries described below and measuring an area about 1807B-4K-8Ls of land in Goalpara District to be town land known as Dhupdhara Town. 6. A bare perusal of the above notification shows that it does not satisfy the requirements under the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act for which notification is required to be issued. Accordingly the opposite party/Plaintiff" was given the opportunity to produce the copy of any such notification or any other documents before this Court that the suit premises is covered by the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. 7. Mr. Choudhury is fair enough to submit that the Plaintiff is unable to produce any such notification. 8. Accordingly the opposite party/Plaintiff" was given the opportunity to produce the copy of any such notification or any other documents before this Court that the suit premises is covered by the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. 7. Mr. Choudhury is fair enough to submit that the Plaintiff is unable to produce any such notification. 8. The definition of 'urban area' as provided under Section 2(g) of the Act reads as follows: 2(g) "urban area" means any area declared to be, (or included in the Gauhati Municipal Corporation as notified under the provision of Section 42 of the Gauhati Municipal Corporation Act 1969 or) a municipality under the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 5 of the Assam Municipal Act, 1956 (Assam Act XV of 1957), or declared to be a notified area under the provisions of Section334 of the said Act. 9. In absence of any other material, we are constraint to hold that the suit premises do not fall under the urban area and the provisions of the said Act are not applicable. It is also submitted by Mr. Choudhury that the Petitioner/Defendant in his pleadings has admitted that the rent was deposited by the him under the provisions of Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act. The above plea in the written statement cannot bring the matter within the scope of the Act. 10. The next submission of the learned Counsel is that if it is held that the suit premises is not covered by the Act, the Plaintiff is entitled to a decree for eviction under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. 11. We have persued the judgment passed by the trial Court as well as the appellate Court and find that both the Courts below decreed the suit on the basis of the provisions of the Act. The alternative plea that the Plaintiff is entitled to eviction was never considered. 12. Mr. Choudhury, learned Counsel has also submitted that the matter is an old one and in view of the materials available on record, this Court in this civil revision can consider the said plea and dispose of the same. 13. The opposite party before us did not raise this plea in their earlier civil revision when this Court held that the crucial point for consideration is whether the suit land falls within the urban area. 13. The opposite party before us did not raise this plea in their earlier civil revision when this Court held that the crucial point for consideration is whether the suit land falls within the urban area. Moreover this Court had directed the appellate Court to decide the appeal in accordance with law. But unfortunately neither the trial Court nor the appellate Court has considered this plea of the Plaintiff that they are entitled to eviction under the Transfer of Property Act. 14. In view of the above, we allow this revision petition and set aside the decree passed by the appellate Court. We also hold that the suit premises do not fall within the urban area and as such the provisions of the Assam Urban Areas Rent Control Act are not applicable. We, however, remit the matter back to the appellate Court to consider and decide whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief? decree as prayed for under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act. 15. The matter is an old one and as such the appellate Court shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law at their earliest. Send down the records. Petition allowed.