Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 581 (GAU)

Gopi Mohan Nath v. Gopal Nunia and Ors.

2009-08-18

P.K.MUSAHARY

body2009
1. Heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. B. Goswami, learned senior advocate assisted by Mrs. T. Goswami, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 24.12.2001 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Cachar, Sichar, in T.A. No. 5/2001 dismissing the appeal and upholding the judgment and decree dated 5.5.2001 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No. 2, Cachar Division, Silchar, in T.S. 58/1984 dismissing the suit. 3. The relevant facts necessary for the purpose of disposal of this appeal may be stated, thus : The present appellant as plaintiff along with pro forma defendant Nos. 15-28 are the owners of the entire land pertaining to second R.S. Patta No. 3 of Mauza Tarapur, Part-VIII P.S. Barakpar and out of the said land, the plaintiff is the exclusive owner of the land described in the schedule to the plaint by amicable family arrangement with other co-pattadars of the Patta. Out of the land described in the schedule to the plaint, the entire land covered by Dag No. 335 is a Paddy land and the same was in personal cultivation of the plaintiff's predecessor and then, to the personal cultivation of the appellant/plaintiff. The entire land covered by Dag Nos. 363 and 364 are road side land. One Bhutai Ram Nunia, father of Senapati Nunia, and grandfather of principal defendant Nos. 1 and 2 was allowed to stay in the land covered under Dag Nos. 353 and 354 as licensee on condition that he would vacate the land as and when required and accordingly, Bhutai Ram Nunia started residing on the land by constructing 2 temporary thatched houses. The other principal defendants did not take any permission from the plaintiffs father or from the plaintiff for staying on the suit land or in any part thereof. The principal defendant Nos. 1-7 encroached upon the plaintiffs patta land in Dag No. 353 situated just adjacent to the land in the south of Dag No. 354 and started digging a pond on 24.1.1983. The appellant plaintiff raised objections but the respondents/defendants did not pay heed to it. The plaintiff then filed a case No. 13 M/83 under section 144 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the Executive Magistrate which was converted to a proceeding under section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant plaintiff raised objections but the respondents/defendants did not pay heed to it. The plaintiff then filed a case No. 13 M/83 under section 144 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, before the Executive Magistrate which was converted to a proceeding under section 145 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The principal defendants, in the said proceeding, pleaded that they are the tenants under the plaintiff and they obtained Katcha Khatian in respect of the suit land. But in fact, they are never the tenant under the plaintiff and they obtained the Katcha Kathian in collusion with the land record staff and so the said Khatian was subsequently cancelled. The said proceeding was dropped by the learned Executive Magistrate by an order dated 10.8.1983 on default of the plaintiff. The further allegation of the plaintiff was that the principal defendants encroached half portion of the land in Dag No. 355 causing change to nature of his patta land. Moreover, the land under Dag Nos. 353 and 354 is required for his own personal use. The plaintiff on 15.5.1983 requested the principal defendant Nos. 1 and 2 and Smt. Senapati Nunia to vacate the land but they refused to comply with the request rather they threatened to completely change the nature of the suit land by digging a pond in the remaining patta land of 355 and by constructing permanent houses, etc., on the suit land. 4. The principal defendant Nos. 1 and 2, by filing written statement, contested the case and the suit proceeded exparte against the remaining defendants. The contesting defendant Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit on the ground of lack of cause of action, misjoinder of parties, namely, defendant Nos. 4-14, limitation, and being barred under the provisions of Assam Tenancy Act and Assam Non-agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955. Denying the entire allegations made in the plaint, the principal defendants 1 and 2, pleaded inter alia that the suit Patta No. 3, measuring an area of 60 bighas, 2 kathas of land was outside the Silchar Town and some years back, the said land was included in the Municipality and as such, the present Assam Non-agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955, is applicable to the suit patta with effect from the date when it was declared as the town land. The predecessor of defendant Nos. The predecessor of defendant Nos. 1 to 3, Bhutai Ram Nunia took settlement of the suit land from late Gulokmoni Nath, the predecessor of plaintiff, more than 50 years ago for agricultural purpose at an annual rent of Rs. 12 which was subsequently raised to Rs. 27 and since then, the predecessor of defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have been in continuous possession of the suit land by constructing his homestead in the northern side of Dag Nos. 353 and 354 and cultivated the land under Dag No. 355 by paying the rent which was received by the plaintiffs predecessor and by the plaintiff himself and his brother late Girindra Mohan Nath and as such, the predecessor of defendants acquired occupancy tenancy right over the suit land and he later on died in the year 1962 leaving behind the defendants who are possessing the suit land as occupancy tenant paying regular rent to the plaintiff and his brother Girindra Mohan Nath. During settlement operation under Assam Tenancy Act, the defendants were found in possession of the suit land as occupancy tenants and as such, Katcha Kathian Nos. 22 and 23 were issued in favour of the contesting defendants in year 1968 but before completion of the said settlement operation, the village in which the suit land situated, was declared as town land for which the settlement operation in the said village was stopped and no final khatian could be issued in the name of the defendants. Thereafter, the Municipal Authority, after declaration of the suit land as town land, made survey in the years 1977-79 and created Holdings in the name of the defendants being Municipal holding Nos. 200, 200A, 201 and 201A and since then, they are paying Municipal Tax, etc., It is specifically pleaded that the defendants acquired the occupancy right over the suit land prior to its declaration as Town land and as such, they are protected under section 2(ii) of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955, and hence, the plaintiff/appellant is not entitled to get Khas possession of the suit land. The defendants further pleaded that there are 9(nine) houses in the suit land and on the western portion of the homestead in possession of defendant No. 1. The defendants further pleaded that there are 9(nine) houses in the suit land and on the western portion of the homestead in possession of defendant No. 1. There are various kinds of old trees, some of which are more than 50 years old, a temple on the south of residential houses of defendant Nos. 2 and 3. There are also sanitary latrine and a pit latrine and on the south of those latrines, there is a tank of about 25 years old, and on the south of this tank, there are 3( three) houses of the contesting defendants in possession of their tenants. The defendants, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit on the aforesaid grounds with cost. 5. The learned trial court framed the following issues : (1) Is there any cause of action? (2) Is the suit barred by limitation or by Assam Tenancy Act and Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955? (3) Is the suit barred for misjoinder of parties? (4) Whether the plaintiff has right, title and interest over the suit land? (5) Whether the defendants dispossessed the plaintiff from the suit Dag No. 355 of the said Patta? (6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to relief as prayed for? (7) To what extent, if any, the plaintiff is entitled? 6. During trial, the plaintiff examined himself only, as PW1, and proved as many as 7(seven) documents. The defendant examined 5(five) DWs and proved 3(three) documents. The learned trial court on the basis of evidence and materials on record and after hearing the parties, dismissed the suit on contest without any cost vide judgment and order dated 5.5.2001. 7. Being dissatisfied and aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, the plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Learned Additional District Judge, Cachar, Sichar, which was registered as T.A. No. 5/2001 and the said appeal was also dismissed on contest vide judgment and order dated 24.1.2001. 8. Against the aforesaid Judgment and order dated 24.1.2001 of the lower appellate court, the present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant. 8. Against the aforesaid Judgment and order dated 24.1.2001 of the lower appellate court, the present appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff/appellant. The appeal was admitted by this court for hearing vide order dated 11.6.2002 with the following substantial questions of law : (1) Whether the lower appellate court erred in law in holding that the right, title and interest of the plaintiff has been extinguished and as such, he is not entitled to declaration of the same although the defendant did not deny title of the plaintiff and claimed tenancy? (2) Whether the lower appellate court erred in construing Ext. F series which do not relate to suit land? (3) Whether the lower appellate court erred in law in holding that the defendants have acquired right under section 5 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955, although the suit land is patta land? 9. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel for the appellant, mainly submits that- (i) The defendants having claimed protection as occupancy tenants under the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971, but having admitted that the land is not being used for agricultural purpose and that a part thereof has been let-out to other defendants, learned courts below ought to have held that the defendants have forfeited their purported right because of operation of sections 50 and 51 of the said Act, and (ii) the courts below on wrong appreciation of evidence on record erred in law in holding that the plaintiffs right, title and interest have been extinguished, and as such, the impugned judgments and decrees are liable to be set aside and quashed. 10. On the contrary, Mr. Goswami, learned senior counsel submits that - (i) The suit was not instituted by the appellant on the basis of title. He has failed to prove his title over the suit lands. In a suit for declaration of right, title, and interest and recovery of khas possession, plaintiff must succeed or fail on title that he establishes and not on the basis of defendant's weakness. In this regard, he refers to the case of Brahmanand v. Mathra Puri, AIR 1965 SC1506, (ii) The defendants have been able to establish their title as occupancy tenants and their long continuous possession, due to which, they have been granted municipal holdings after the suit lands were included in the Municipality area by a Government Notification. In this regard, he refers to the case of Brahmanand v. Mathra Puri, AIR 1965 SC1506, (ii) The defendants have been able to establish their title as occupancy tenants and their long continuous possession, due to which, they have been granted municipal holdings after the suit lands were included in the Municipality area by a Government Notification. As regards the distinction between licence' and 'lease' and their rights, Mr. Goswami, referred to Board of Revenues A.M. Ansari, AIR 1976 SC 1813 , Gulraj Singh v. Mota Singh, AIR 1965 SC 608 , Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. R.N. Kapoor, AIR 1959 SC 1262 and Sivayogeswara Cotton Press v. Panchaksharappa, AIR 1962 SC413, and (iii) The defendants are protected under the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955, inasmuch as the suit lands are included in the Silchar Municipality by a Government Notification under clause (A) of rule 64 of the Settlement Rule made under the Assam Land and Revenue Reassessment Act, 1963. In this regard, Mr. Goswami, relies on Mahendra lal Baruah v. Ram Prasad, 1954ILR 10. 11. The first substantial question of law mainly relates to Issue Nos. 4 and 6 framed by the learned trial court which were decided in the negative and which were upheld by the lower appellate court. I have perused Ext.1, from which, it is found that it is an ejmali patta in the name of as many as 16 co-pattadars, out of which Gopendra Mohan Nath, Girindra Mohan Nath and Gopi Mohan Nath are the sons of late Golokmoni Nath, predecessor of the plaintiff. The Patta No. 3 stood jointly in the name of 3(three) sons of late Golok Moni Nath and the appellant/plain tiff claimed that he is the sole owner of Suit Dag Nos. 353, 354 and 355. The plaintiff also claimed that there was a family arrangement and he became the exclusive owner of the aforementioned suit Dags. But the plaintiff/appellant did not adduce any evidence in support of his claim of such family arrangement. The record shows that the plaintiff examined himself only without examining the aforesaid surviving brothers who were/are joint pattadars of the suit Dags. But the plaintiff/appellant did not adduce any evidence in support of his claim of such family arrangement. The record shows that the plaintiff examined himself only without examining the aforesaid surviving brothers who were/are joint pattadars of the suit Dags. In his evidence, during cross-examination, the plaintiff, as PW1, deposed that in the year 1975, a registered partition deed among the 3 brothers, was executed and the said Dags were partitioned but the aforesaid partition deed was not produced before the court. Although he stated that the suit partition deed was filed before a court in connection with a case, he made no application for calling the same from the court concerned nor did he file a certified copy of the said deed to prove that any such partition was ever made. Moreover, from the evidence of plaintiff, it is found that he is not in a position to say how much of land, in which Dag, he got or which of the land his other brothers got. The plaintiff, therefore, totally failed to establish his own title, by adducing sufficient evidence. The lower appellate court same to a conclusion that simply because his name stands in the ejmali patta, he cannot claim as the exclusive title holder in respect of the Dags mentioned in the suit. Furthermore, the lower appellate court came to a conclusion that mere entries in the Jamabandi does not empower the plaintiff appellant for the purpose of eviction and his right and interest has been extinguished and consequently, he is not entitled for declaration of right and interest. The question of law that has arisen is that on the admitted pleading of the respondents/defendants that they are the occupancy tenants, whether such declaration made by the lower appellate court is correct or not. Let me examine this. 12. In the plaint, the plaintiff/appellant took the plea that one Bhutai Ram Nunia, the father of principal defendant No. 2 and grandfather of principal defendant Nos. 1 and 3, was allowed to stay in the suit Dag Nos. 353 and 354 as a licensee on condition that he would vacate the land as and when the same would be required by the plaintiffs father and the plaintiff. On the contrary, the contesting defendant Nos. 1 and 3, was allowed to stay in the suit Dag Nos. 353 and 354 as a licensee on condition that he would vacate the land as and when the same would be required by the plaintiffs father and the plaintiff. On the contrary, the contesting defendant Nos. 1,2 and 6 pleaded in the written statement that Bhutai Ram Nunia took the sett suit land from Golok Moni Nath, the predecessor of the plaintiff, more than 50 years ago, for agricultural purpose, at an annual rent of Rs. 12 which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 35. The plaintiff/appellant could not produce any documentary or oral evidence to prove that the predecessor of principal defendants was possessing and enjoying the suit land as a licensee and the present defendants, after the death of Bhutai Ram Nunia, have been possessing the suit land without fresh licence or extension of earlier licence. On the other hand, the principal defendants have produced the rent receipts issued by the predecessor of the plaintiff Golok Moni Nath, in his own handwriting, which were proved and marked as Ext.F series. Similar rent receipts were also issued by his brother Gopendra Mohan Nath, in his own handwriting, which were proved and marked as Ext.G to GK5) and also by the plaintiff himself which were also proved and marked as Ext.H to H(19). The defendants also produced rent receipts which bore signatures of Girindra Mohan Nath which were also proved and marked as Ext. 1 to 1(2). Thus, the defendants/respondents were successful in proving their case that they are not unauthorized occupants rather they are tenants of the plaintiff and they have acquired the right of occupancy tenants by virtue of a long and continuous possession as tenants in respect of the suit land. Furthermore, the defendants/respondents have been able to prove that as occupancy tenants, they were granted 4(four) Municipal Holdings namely Holding No. 200, 200A, 201 and 201A, after the suit land was included in the Municipality area vide Government Notification. Accordingly, they have paid Municipal Tax, in support of which, they have produced and proved the Municipal Tax Payment receipts, as Ext. A, A( 1) to A(13). The plaintiff/appellant pleaded ignorance about the granting of Municipal holdings to the defendants although the suit land situates at a stone's throw distance from his house. 13. Accordingly, they have paid Municipal Tax, in support of which, they have produced and proved the Municipal Tax Payment receipts, as Ext. A, A( 1) to A(13). The plaintiff/appellant pleaded ignorance about the granting of Municipal holdings to the defendants although the suit land situates at a stone's throw distance from his house. 13. The evidence on record sufficiently proved that the defendants are neither unauthorized occupants nor licensees inasmuch as they have proved by adducing oral and documentary evidence that they are occupancy tenants. On the face of such evidence, there is no scope for treating the defendants as licensees, rather, they are to be treated as lessees. The term lease has been defined under section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, as under : "105. Lease defined. - A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property, made for a certain term, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferred by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms." The licence has been defined under section 52 of the Indian Easement Act, 1882, as under : "52. Licence defined. - Where one person grants to another, or to a definite number of other persons, a right to do, or continue to do, in or upon the immovable property of the grantor, something which would, in the absence of such right, be unlawful, and such right does not amount to an easement or an interest in the property, the right is called a licence." 14. On the basis of the aforesaid provisions of law, the Apex Court in R.N. Kapoor (supra), held in paragraph 27, as under : "27...............Under the aforesaid section, if a document gives only a right to use the property in a particular way or under certain terms while it remains in possession and control of the owner thereof, it will be a license. - The legal position, therefore, continues to be with the owner of the property, but the licensee is permitted to make use of the premises for a particular purpose. But for the permission, his occupation would be unlawful. It does not create in his favour any estate or interest in the property. - The legal position, therefore, continues to be with the owner of the property, but the licensee is permitted to make use of the premises for a particular purpose. But for the permission, his occupation would be unlawful. It does not create in his favour any estate or interest in the property. There is, therefore, clear distinction between the two concepts. The dividing line is clear though sometimes it becomes very thin or even blurred. At one time, it was thought that the test of exclusive possession was infallible and if a person was given exclusive possession of a premises, it would conclusively established that he was a lessee..........." 15. Considered in the light of the above position of law, the Apex Court in Corporation of Calicut v. K. Sreenivasan, (2002) 5 SCC 361 held that the licensee would never be forcefully evicted by the guarantor without taking recourse to the provisions of law. Here, in the present case, the defendants are occupancy tenants and they are lessees as they are occupying the suit land on payment of rent which could not be disproved by the plaintiff appellant. Being lessees, the defendants are in a better position and cannot be evicted in the manner prescribed for eviction of licensee. 16. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of right, title and interest over the suit land and for recovery of khas possession of the same by dismantling the old houses and structures situated thereon by removing the principal defendants, their relatives and any other person claiming through them, from the suit land but the plaintiff failed to establish his own title over the said suit land by any conclusive or convincing evidence; oral or documentary, that the suit, land by virtue of partition in family arrangement, as claimed by him. Without producing or proving the registered deed of partition executed on the basis of family arrangement, he cannot claim the title over the suit land. He has not only failed to produce or prove the said document but even failed to say which of the land from amongst the 3 suit Dags, he got. 17. The long and continuous possession of Dag Nos. He has not only failed to produce or prove the said document but even failed to say which of the land from amongst the 3 suit Dags, he got. 17. The long and continuous possession of Dag Nos. 353 and 354 by constructing houses of permanent nature thereon and also some portion of Dag No. 355, having been proved by the contesting defendants by adducing sufficient evidence; oral as well as documentary, and the plaintiff/appellant having admitted that his predecessor, brother and he himself received rents from them having been proved vide Exhibits F, G, H and I series and thereby the fact that the defendants are tenants of the plaintiff having been proved, the defendants have been able to establish a case of accruing title over the suit lands. The continuous possession by the defendants as tenants over the suit lands, has created, in the eye of law, better title over the title of the plaintiff on the suit land over which he has no physical/actual possession. It is because of this position/possession, the plaintiff would lose his right, title and interest over the suit lands although the defendants do not deny title of the plaintiff over the suit lands. In my considered view, the lower appellate court committed no wrong in coming to a conclusion that the right, title and interest of the plaintiff has been extinguished and as such, he is not entitled to declaration of the same although the defendants did not deny the title of the plaintiff. 18. The Exhibit F series have been proved by DW-1 Gupai Nunia, W/o late Shew Prasad Nunia. The exhibit F-series are the rent payment receipts issued by Golak Nath, predecessor of the plaintiff. A set of other rent payment receipts issued by the plaintiff's brother Girindra Mohan Nath to Gopal Nunia have been proved vide Exhibit G series and another set of similar receipts issued by Gopi Mohan Nath in favour of Gopal Nunia and Senapati Nunia, has also been proved and marked Exhibit-H series. Exhibit-I series are also rent receipts issued by Girindra Mohan Nath in favour of Shew Prasad Nunia, predecessor of defendant No. 1. Exhibit-I series are also rent receipts issued by Girindra Mohan Nath in favour of Shew Prasad Nunia, predecessor of defendant No. 1. The finding of the courts below is that the predecessors of the plaintiff continuously took rent from the respondents and the plaintiff side allowed them to reside in the suit land by way of constructing their houses and this act of the plaintiff clearly establishes the intention of allowing the contesting defendants to reside over the said suit land on payment of rent on yearly basis. It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff side allowed the respondents/defendants to possess the suit land as tenants and they were allowed to construct houses and even they were allowed to rent-out some of their houses so constructed. The defendants by their conduct namely by paying rents to the plaintiff side have established the position that they are the tenants. The aforesaid rent payment receipts marked as Exhibits F, G, H and I series, could not be disproved by the plaintiff by adducing any evidence. The only plea that could be taken by the plaintiff is that the said rent payment receipts do not relate to the suit land. The defendant side has sufficiently proved by adducing evidence that the land payment receipts relate only to the suit lands. If the possession of the suit land by the defendants is proved, rather admitted, there would be no scope to say that the said rent payment receipts relate to some other land. In that view of the matter, there is no scope for taking a view that the said rent payment receipts are not related to the suit land. It must be remembered that the plaintiff side have pleaded that the predecessor of the defendants have been occupying the suit land as licensees, which continued till the days of the contesting defendants and if it is taken as correct for the time being, the aforesaid rent payment receipts would have a relation with the land in occupation by the defendants and that, the land in occupation of the defendants are the same suit land which are under the occupation of the contesting defendants for which they are paying the rent as tenants. In view of the above, it leads to a conclusion that the lower appellate court committed no error both in facts and law in construing the Exhibit F series to the effect that they actually relate to the suit lands in question. 19. The defendant side through DWs proved that, in the year 1979, the area where the suit land situated, was included in the municipality area by a Government Notification. It was also proved by the DWs that before the Government Notification declaring the said areas as municipality area, the settlement operation started and they were issued Katcha Kathians but the final khatians could not be issued as because the said area was declared as municipality area. The defendants also proved by adducing evidence that they were granted Holding Nos. 200, 200A, 201 and 201A and they have been paying municipal tax which are marked as Exhibits A, A(1) to A(13). It has thus become an admitted position that the lands in dispute have fallen under the municipality area and they are covered under the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955. The status of the land i.e., paddy land, before declaration of municipality area, has been changed to town land in view of the provision under section l(2)(b) of the said Act, which is quoted as under : "1. Short title, extent and commencement. - (1) This Act may be called the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955. (2) It may extend - (a) to the urban areas in the State of Assam; and (b) to any other areas which have been or may hereafter be declared town areas under clause (a) of rule 64 of the Settlement Rules under the Assam Land and Revenue Regulation, 1886 (Regulation 1 of 1886) or the Assam Land Revenue Reassessment Act, 1936 (Assam Act VIII of 1936)." It is not the case of plaintiff/appellant that the contesting defendants, after being issued the municipal holdings, are not paying the municipal tax for occupation of the land and buildings thereon. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff side made any objection before the competent authority against the action taken by the municipal authority in granting holdings to the contesting defendants. There is nothing on record to show that the plaintiff side made any objection before the competent authority against the action taken by the municipal authority in granting holdings to the contesting defendants. It is already established that the right, title and interest of the plaintiff has been extinguished inasmuch as they were not in possession of the suit land for a long period of time and the plaintiff side has been estopped by the principle of estopple, waiver and acquiescence. The defendants have stepped over the shoes of the plaintiff and acquired a right, title and interest over the lands in question. 20. Being holders of the municipality holdings, the contesting defendants are the rightful owner and/or landlord in terms of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955, in respect of the municipality land under their possession. They are not the tenants under the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955, and as such, they are protected under the said Act. There is also nothing on record to demonstrate that the plaintiff made any attempt to get the aforesaid holdings granted in favour of the contesting defendants, cancelled. Under such circumstances and the evidence or record, it is difficult to hold that the lower appellate court erred in law in holding that the defendants have acquired right under section 5 of the Assam Non-Agricultural Urban Areas Tenancy Act, 1955, although the suit land is a paddy land. I hold so in view of the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this court in Mahendra lal Barua (supra), wherein it is held that the effect of inclusion of the land in a Civil Station (Municipality) would be that after the date of inclusion in the Civil Station, the relationship of landlord and tenant would not be governed by the provision of the Tenancy Act, but the tenant shall retain the rights already acquired. 21. The substantial question of law are answered accordingly. In the result, the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.12.2001 is upheld and the present appeal is dismissed. There would be no order as to costs. 22. Send down the lower court records forthwith.