JUDGMENT : KALYAN RAI SURANA, J. 1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewala, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Katakey, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. S. C. Keyal, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the respondent. 2. By RFA No.70/2014 filed under section 96 CPC, the appellants have challenged the judgment and decree dated 21.06.2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Jorhat in M.S. 35/2011, by which the suit filed by the respondents was decreed. By RFA No.69/2014, filed under section 96 CPC, the appellants have challenged the same judgment and decree in so far it relates to the dismissal of the counter-claim filed by the appellants-defendants. 3. The case of the respondents in the plaint is that a part of the land of M/s. Lohpohia Tea Estate was acquired by the Government of India, Ministry of Defence and since its acquisition, the said land became part and parcel of the Defence land, which was under the control and ownership of the Indian Air Force and the adjoining area was used as a Defence Air Force Station. During the period from 1996 to May 2002, a part of the suit land was given on lease to M/s. Degubber Tea Estate and the Lease Agreement dated 01.06.2001 was for a period from 01.06.2001 to 31.05.2002, as per which 10.39 Hectares land as well as 2.50 Hectares of land located inside the Air Force boundary was leased out at the annual lease rent of Rs. 5,30,500/-. The respondents were entitled to a payment of Rs. 5,000/- per month as maintenance cost as per the clauses of the said agreement. As per clause 6 of the said agreement, the lease was for a period of 1(one) year commencing from 01.06.2001. 4. In the plaint it was projected that the proforma defendant No.4 namely, M/s. Degubber Tea Estate and M/s. Lohpohia Tea Estate were sister concern and that all correspondence and hearing were carried out of M/s. Lohpohia Tea Estate on behalf by M/s. Degubber Tea Estate. After the lease had expired on 31.05.2002, the period of lease was not extended due to security considerations and accordingly, by letter dated 30.04.2002, the Group Captain, Chief Administrative Officer, 10 Wing A.F. intimated to the Manager, Lohpohia Tea Estate about the decision to not renew the lease period after 31.05.2002. After the lease had expired on 31.05.2002, the period of lease was not extended due to security considerations and accordingly, by letter dated 30.04.2002, the Group Captain, Chief Administrative Officer, 10 Wing A.F. intimated to the Manager, Lohpohia Tea Estate about the decision to not renew the lease period after 31.05.2002. It was projected that the Lohpohia Tea Estate continued to enjoy the tea produce till 2004. The respondents by a letter dated 19.07.2002 asked the Manager, Lohpohia Tea Estate to stop unauthorized plucking and that anyone entering into the land would be treated as trespasser and action would be initiated. 5. By the letter dated 03.08.2004, the appellant enclosed the expenditure and income statement in respect of 10.39 Hectares of tea area maintained by the Tea Estate in the year 2002-03 and requested for an early amicable settlement in the matter. The said letter was received by the respondent on 09.08.2004. On the basis of the discussions, the Manager of Lohpohia Tea Estate, by a letter dated 08.09.2004, informed the Chief Administrative Officer, 10 Wing Air Force that a sum of Rs. 9,41,000/- would be paid to the Air Force authorities for the period from 01.06.2002 to 31.05.2004 in 5 monthly instalments. 6. However, the appellant had defaulted and thereafter, the Manager of Lohpohia Tea Estate, by letter dated 04.08.2008, informed the Air Force authorities that they would be depositing the first installment in the first week of August, 2008. However, as the appellants had defaulted, the authorities of the respondent No.2 issued a demand notice on 12.10.2009 as well as on 09.01.2010 by demanding the admitted amount of Rs. 9,41,000/-. As the said amount remained unpaid, the respondents after obtaining administration sanction, had instituted the suit being M.S. No.35/2011 on 14.11.2011 for recovery of the aforesaid admitted amount together with interest at 12% per annum which was calculated at Rs. 7,99,850/- and accordingly the suit was filed for realization of Rs. 17,40,850/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization. 7. The appellants had filed their written statement cum- counter-claim, wherein, apart from taking usual defence, it was pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. It was also stated that after not renewing the lease, the appellants had prevented the respondents to enter into the tea plantation area to pluck trees, causing losses to them. 7. The appellants had filed their written statement cum- counter-claim, wherein, apart from taking usual defence, it was pleaded that the suit was barred by limitation. It was also stated that after not renewing the lease, the appellants had prevented the respondents to enter into the tea plantation area to pluck trees, causing losses to them. It was projected that the respondents had never agreed to pay the amount of Rs. 9,41,000/- to the appellants and that if any such letter dated 08.09.2004 was issued by the Manager of the respondents without the consent and discussion with the respondents, the respondents were not liable to pay such a huge amount when they had sustained heavy losses in running the tea garden. It was also submitted that the said Manager had submitted his resignation and had left the Company without informing the admission alleged to have been made by him for payment of the dues. It was claimed that if the respondents had no intention to renew their lease, they ought to have not allowed the appellants to carry out development and new plantation, and accordingly, it was claimed that the respondents had spent a sum of Rs. 9,73,060/- towards cost of fencing in the new plantation area, cost of plantation of tea saplings, cost of shade trees planted in the new plantation area, cost of in filling in vacant area of 10.39 hectare ('Ha.' For short), for which the appellants had served a demand notice on the respondents. It was stated that thereafter, vide letter dated 18.01.2002, the Air Commodore, Air Force Commanding, gave a evasive reply denying their liability, for which after issuing notice dated 15.12.2011 under Section 80 CPC, the counter-claim was filed, inter-alia, under the following heads:- 1. Cost of fencing in 1 hectare new plantation Rs. 1,50,000/- 2. Cost of plantation of 15,000 new tea saplings (@ Rs. 25/- each) Rs. 3,75,000/- 3. Cost of 175 shade trees (@ Rs. 100/- each) Rs. 17,500/- 4. Cost of in filling in vacant area of 10.39 ha.(@ Rs. 4000/- per ha) Rs. 4,30,000/- Total Rs. 9,73,060/- 8. Accordingly, the appellants had prayed for (i) dismissal of the suit; (ii) for declaring that the appellants are entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 9,73,060/-; and (iii) cost. 9. 100/- each) Rs. 17,500/- 4. Cost of in filling in vacant area of 10.39 ha.(@ Rs. 4000/- per ha) Rs. 4,30,000/- Total Rs. 9,73,060/- 8. Accordingly, the appellants had prayed for (i) dismissal of the suit; (ii) for declaring that the appellants are entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 9,73,060/-; and (iii) cost. 9. The respondents had filed their written statement against the counterclaim filed by the appellants, denying their liability on the ground that as per the agreement dated 01.06.2001, it was provided that the appellant was to develop and plant tea crops in the balance area measuring approximately 1 Ha within the contract period at their own cost and that the said agreement did not provide for the right to recover any amount. It was stated that the appellant was liable to pay the admitted amount of Rs. 9,41,000/- to the respondents for the period from 01.06.2002 to 31.05.2004, for their failure to hand over possession of the land after expiry of the lease and did not stop plucking tea leaves and the appellants were enjoying the tea produced without paying any revenue to the respondents. It was also stated that the appellant was given one month's notice not to renew the lease. Hence, the respondents prayed for the dismissal of the counter-claim. 10. On the basis of pleadings, the learned trial Court had framed the following issues:- Issues in Suit: 1. Is there any cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? 3. Whether the plaintiff entrusted the defendants to expand develop and to plant the balance vacant one? 4. Whether the defendant paid the agreed lease amount of Rs. 5,30,500/- as per Clause 6 of the deed of lease agreement? 5. Is the Manager of Lahpahia Tea Estate cultivating the aforesaid lease out land even after expiry of the Lease Agreement without depositing any revenue to the Air Force Authority? 6. Whether Lahpohia Tea Estate sustained loss of Rs. 86,892/- from the year ended on 31.5.2002 and Rs. 59,083/- from the year ended on 31.3.2003? 7. Whether the defendants are liable to pay Rs. 9,41,000/- as alleged by the plaintiff? 8. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree as prayed for? Issues on Counter-claim: 1. Is there cause of action in the counter claim? 2. Whether the counter claim is time barred? 3. 59,083/- from the year ended on 31.3.2003? 7. Whether the defendants are liable to pay Rs. 9,41,000/- as alleged by the plaintiff? 8. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree as prayed for? Issues on Counter-claim: 1. Is there cause of action in the counter claim? 2. Whether the counter claim is time barred? 3. Whether the counter claim is bad for non-payment of proper court fee? 4. Is there verbal assurance given to the defendant to extend the period of lease agreement? 5. Whether the defendant promised to pay a sum of Rs. 9,41,000/- due to Air Force for the period from 01.06.02 to 31.5.2004 but failed to make any payment? 6. Whether the Air Force paid the maintenance charge of Rs. 5000/- per month? 7. Whether the defendant violated any clause of renewal/ extension of lease period? 8. Whether the defendant is entitled to get a decree in the counter claim? 9. To what relief(s) the parties are entitled to? 11. In support of the suit, the respondents- plaintiffs had examined Mr. Tirunagari Narasimha Swami and exhibited the following documents, viz., (i) Lease Agreement dated 01.06.2001 (Ext.1), (ii) Letter dated 30.04.2002 (Ext.2), (iii) Letter dated 25.05.2004 (Ext.3), (iv) Letter dated 01.06.2004 (Ext.4), (v) Copy of letter dated 09.07.2004 (Ext.5), (iv) Copy of letter dated 03.08.2004 (Ext.6), (vii) Copy of letter dated 03.01.2005 (Ext.7), (viii) Letter dated 03.08.2004 (Ext.8), (ix) Letter dated 08.09.2004 (Ext.9), (x) Letter dated 04.08.2004 (Ext.10), (xi) Letter dated 25.08.2008 (Ext.11), (xii) Letter dated 25.08.2008 (Ext.12), (xiii) Copy of Demand Notice dated 12.10.2009 with acknowledgement (Ext.13), (xiv) Copy of demand notice dated 09.01.2010 with acknowledgement (Ext.14) . The appellants- defendants had examined two witnesses, namely, Sri Pramod Jalan (DW-1) and Sri Gopal Tassa (DW-2) and had exhibited various documents as Ext.A to Ext.R, viz: Ext.A : Notice under section 80 CPC served by the Defendant Ext.A(1) : A.D. Card of the Notice Ext.B (1 to 10) : Debit Vouncer against supply of cowdung Ext.C(1) to C(4) : Challan & Bill for supplying Tea Saplings (plant) Ext.D(1) to D(10) : Bill & Debit Voucher of Agency Centre for Payment against supply of Chemicals viz. Pesticide, Weedicide, Herbicides etc. Ext.E(1) : Debit Voucher for payment to Omkarmal Agarwal for supply of MOP & DAP Ext.F(1) to F(19) : Debit Voucher of Labour wages in spraying of pesticides and weedicide. Pesticide, Weedicide, Herbicides etc. Ext.E(1) : Debit Voucher for payment to Omkarmal Agarwal for supply of MOP & DAP Ext.F(1) to F(19) : Debit Voucher of Labour wages in spraying of pesticides and weedicide. Ext.G(1) to G(19) : Voucher of Labour Payment for cutting jungles of new plantation area. Ext.H(1) to H(22) : Voucher of Labour wages for tea planting. Ext.I(1) to I(10) : Voucher of Labour wages for digging drains. Ext.J(1) to J(8) :Voucher of Labour wages for land levelling. Ext.K(1) to K(6) :Voucher of Labour wages for pruning. Ext.L(1) to L(11) :Voucher of Labour wages for shade tree planting. Ext.M(1) to M(6) :Voucher of Labour wages for mulching. Ext.N(1) to N(10) :Voucher of Labour wages for sickling. Ext.O(1) to O(10) :Voucher of Staff salary payment. Ext.P(1) to P(5) :Voucher of Labour wages payment for splitting manure. Ext.Q(1) to Q(10) :Voucher of Labour wages on account of fixing wire fencing. Ext.R(1) to R(11) :Voucher of sub-staff salary payment. On a perusal of the trial Court records, it appears that by order dated 12.06.2013, on the petition filed by the appellants, the respondents were directed to produce the original copy of the notice dated 15.12.2011, sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India, and accordingly, the said document was produced on 09.09.2013. Moreover, by order dated 01.02.2014, while the learned trial Court had dismissed petition filed by the respondents under Section 151 CPC read with Order VII Rule 14(3) and Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) CPC to file documents, the petition filed by the appellants under Order VIII Rule 1-A(3) to file documents was allowed. 12. The learned trial Court had taken up issue No.3 first on the basis of the evidence of PW-1, it was held that the appellants were entrusted to expand, develop and to plant the balance vacant land and the issue was decided in favour of the appellants. In respect of issues No. 4, 5 and 7, by discussing the evidence of the PW-1 and DW-1, it was held that vide letter dated 03.08.2004 (Ext.8), the appellants had provided the income and expenditure statement to the respondents and requested for amicable settlement of the issue of revenue. In respect of issues No. 4, 5 and 7, by discussing the evidence of the PW-1 and DW-1, it was held that vide letter dated 03.08.2004 (Ext.8), the appellants had provided the income and expenditure statement to the respondents and requested for amicable settlement of the issue of revenue. It was held that pursuant to the said letter dated 03.08.2004 (Ext.8), discussions were held and that the Manager of Lohpohia Tea Estate by their letter dated 08.09.2004 (Ext.9) addressed to the Chief Administrative Officer, agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 9,41,000/- in monthly installments, but the appellants had defaulted. Hence, in respect of issue No.4, it was held that the appellant had paid lease amount of Rs. 5,30,300/- for lease period from 01.06.2001 to 31.05.2002 and issues No. 5 and 7 were decided in the affirmative and in favour of the respondent by holding that the appellant were cultivating leased out land after expiry of lease without depositing any revenue to the Air Force Authority and it was held that the appellants were liable to pay Rs. 9,41,000/- to the respondents for 2 years from 01.06.2002 to 31.05.2004. In respect of issue No.4, it was held that the appellant by their letter dated 04.08.2008 (Ext.10), informed the Chief Administrative Officer that they were ready to deposit first installment in the third week of August, 2008 and sought for instructions about the mode of payment, and it was held that the respondent's witness was not cross examined on the said letter dated 04.08.2008 (Ext.10). It was held that as per contents of letter dated 04.08.2008 (Ext.10), there was a mention of letter dated 19.02.2007 and, as such, it was held that the said letter dated 04.08.2008 (Ext.10) was within three years of letter dated 08.09.2004 (Ext.9), after which demand notice dated 12.10.2009 (Ext.12 Series) and 09.01.2010 (Ext.12 Series) were served on 12.10.2009 and 13.01.2010 respectively and when the appellants had failed to pay the demanded amount, the suit was instituted and, as such, it was held that the suit was filed within the period of limitation and that the suit was not barred by limitation and issue No.2 was decided in favour of the respondents. In respect of issue No.6, it was held that in the lease agreement (Ext.1), there was no mention about relaxation of the amount of lease rent to be paid to the respondent if the appellant suffered losses and it was further held that as per the lease agreement (Ext.1), the entire expenses was to be borne by the appellant, as such, the issue No. 6 was decided in the negative and in favour of the respondent. However, in respect of issue No.1, it was held that there was cause of action for the suit. In respect of issue No.8, it was held that the respondent was entitled to get a decree as prayed for. 13. Thereafter, issue No.2 of the counter-claim was taken up. The learned trial Court upon discussing the cause of action arrived at a conclusion that the extension of lease was refused on 30.04.2002, and the respondents had removed shade trees, tree plantation, etc. on 16.08.2008, but the notice under Section 80 CPC was issued on 15.12.2011 and, as such, the claim was barred by limitation. In respect of counter-claim issue No.3, it was held that as the appellants had only prayed for declaration without seeking recovery of money, the case was not bad for non- payment of court fees. In respect of counter-claim issue No.4, it was held that there was nothing on record to show that there was any verbal assurance to extend the lease period and accordingly, the issue was decided in the negative and against the appellants. In respect of counter-claim issues no. 5 and 6, it was held that the appellants had not paid a sum of Rs. 9,41,000/- after deducting maintenance charges of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards maintenance cost at the rate of Rs. 5,000/- per month despite promise vide letter dated 08.09.2004 (Ext.9). In respect of counter-claim issue No. 7, it was held that although the lease was for one year from 01.06.2001 to 31.05.2002, the appellants were in possession of the land and had not paid the lease amount of Rs. 5,30,500/- to the respondents and the respondents had not paid maintenance cost to the appellants. In respect of counter-claim issue No. 7, it was held that although the lease was for one year from 01.06.2001 to 31.05.2002, the appellants were in possession of the land and had not paid the lease amount of Rs. 5,30,500/- to the respondents and the respondents had not paid maintenance cost to the appellants. In respect of counter-claim issue No. 8, it was held that in their pleadings, it was not mentioned that the respondents had failed to pay maintenance cost and, as such, it was held that the appellants were not entitled to get a decree in the counter-claim and accordingly, the said issue was decided in the negative and against the appellant. Hence, in respect of counter-claim issue No. 9, it was held that the appellants were not entitled to any relief as prayed for in the counter-claim. 14. The learned senior advocate for the appellant has assailed the decree passed in favour of the respondents by submitting that the learned trial Court had misread and misconstrued the evidence on record and had arrived at a totally erroneous and perverse conclusion. In this connection it was submitted that as the lease agreement dated 01.06.2001 (Ext.1) had admittedly lapsed on 31.05.2002 by efflux of time, the appellant was a statutory tenant and, as such, under the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act, the tenancy would be a monthly tenancy and the monthly rent would fall due on the last day of each month and as per the agreement (Ext.1), the monthly rent was payable within the 5th of the succeeding month. Hence, rent in respect of each English calendar month would become time-barred after lapse of 3 (three) years from the date when the monthly rent became due and payable. Hence, irrespective of the notice of demand, the rent from 01.06.2002 to 31.05.2004 had become hopelessly barred by limitation on 14.11.2011, the date when the suit was filed. It is further submitted that none of the letters or documents exhibited by any of the parties can be construed to be an acknowledgement of debt within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 or creates a valid and enforceable agreement to pay a time barred debt within the meaning of Section 25 of the Contract Act, 1872. In support of the counter-claim filed by the appellants, it is submitted that if the cause of action for the counter-claim is reckoned from the date of filing of the suit, then the counter-claim was filed within the period of limitation. 15. Per contra, the learned Assistant Solicitor General of India has made his submission in support of the judgment impugned herein, in so far as it relates to the allowing of the claim made in the plaint. It is submitted that the learned trial Court after discussing the evidence on record has arrived at a well considered finding that the suit for the claim was filed by the respondents well within the period of limitation. It is submitted that there is no dispute that the respondents are the owner of the land and that the land was leased out to the appellants only for a year, but the appellants did not vacate the said land and, as such, the respondents, being the lessors, were within their right to institute the suit for recovery of the lease rental. It is submitted that the Manager of Lohpohia Tea Estate, the appellant- defendant No.3 had specifically admitted the dues of Rs. 9,41,000/- of the respondents by the letter dated 08.09.2004 (Ext.9) and undertook to pay the said dues for the period from 01.06.2002 to 31.05.2004 in 5 (five) monthly installments, as such, the said letter not only acknowledged the dues of the respondents as per the requirement of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 but the said letter also had the effect of extending the period of limitation, and that the said letter also constituted an agreement to pay time barred debt, which would be a valid contract within the meaning of Section 25 of the Contract Act, 1872. 16. It may be mentioned that having found that as per the contents of agreement (Ext.1), the name of the lessee therein is "Shri M. Rehman, General Manager of Degubber Tea Estate", as such, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and the learned A.S.G.I. were asked to address this Court on the said aspect. Accordingly, both sides had submitted that they are relying on whatever is available on record. 17. Accordingly, both sides had submitted that they are relying on whatever is available on record. 17. On the basis of the submissions made on behalf of both sides and considering the materials available on record, the following points of determination arises for consideration of this Court:- I. Whether the claim and counter-claim of the parties were barred by limitation? II. Whether the suit was maintainable on the ground of nonjoinder of necessary parties? III. Whether the impugned judgment is sustainable on facts and in law? IV. To what reliefs are the parties entitled to? 18. Discussion and decision on Point of Determination No.I: a. On the issue relating to limitation, at the cost of repetition, it is stated that the learned trial Court had dealt with the said issue by holding that as per contents of letter dated 04.08.2008 (Ext.10), there was a mention of letter dated 19.02.2007, as such, the said letter dated 04.08.2008 (Ext.10) was within three years of letter dated 08.09.2004 (Ext.9), after which demand notice dated 12.10.2009 (Ext.12 Series) and 09.01.2010 (Ext.12 Series) were served on 12.10.2009 and 13.01.2010 respectively and when the appellants had failed to pay the demanded amount, the suit was instituted and, as such, it was held that the suit was filed within the period of limitation and that the suit was not barred by limitation and issue No.2 was decided in favour of the respondents. b. However, from the pleadings made in a plaint, there is no statement referring to the letter of 19.02.2007. There is no statement by the PW-1 referring to the letter dated 19.02.2007 contained in letter dated 04.08.2008 (Ext.10). In this context, it is well settled that no amount of evidence can be looked into in the absence of pleadings. If one requires any authority on the said legal principle, one may refer to the case of Bachhaj Nahar V. Nilima Mandal & Anr., (2008) 17 SCC 491 . c. Moreover, it appears that the learned trial Court had erred while appreciating the evidence on record. As indicated above, while deciding issue No.2 in respect of the suit, the learned trial Court had held that " This Ext.10 is within three years from the letter dated 8.09.2004 (Ext.9)." This is apparently not sustainable because the date of the letter marked as Ext.10 is 04.08.2008, which is way beyond three years from letter dated 08.09.2004 (Ext.9). As indicated above, while deciding issue No.2 in respect of the suit, the learned trial Court had held that " This Ext.10 is within three years from the letter dated 8.09.2004 (Ext.9)." This is apparently not sustainable because the date of the letter marked as Ext.10 is 04.08.2008, which is way beyond three years from letter dated 08.09.2004 (Ext.9). It is also seen that even calculating from 04.08.2008 (Ext.10), as the suit was filed on 14.11.2011, once again the suit was filed beyond the period of limitation, even by assuming that letters dated 19.02.2007 (not exhibited), 08.09.2004 (Ext.9) and 04.08.2008 (Ext.10) is accepted as acknowledgement of debt as projected by the respondent. Hence, in any view of the matter, the finding of the learned trial Court is not found sustainable and as there is no acknowledgement of debt within a period of three years on and from the date when the alleged dues had accrued, the claim made by the respondents in the suit filed on 14.11.2011 is hopelessly barred by limitation. d. Coming to the issue No.2 on counter-claim, it is seen that it is the admitted case of the appellants that they were prohibited from plucking tea leaves on and from 31.05.2002 in the security area of the Air Force Airport area, as such, any claim which the appellants might have, had crystallized on 31.05.2002 and having not filed their suit for recovery of money, the claim had become barred by limitation and, as such, the counter-claim was not maintainable. Therefore, the learned trial Court is found to have aptly appreciated the pleadings and evidence on record to hold that the counterclaim was barred by limitation. e. Therefore, this Court is constrained to hold that the decision of the learned trial Court on issue No.2 of the suit is not sustainable, as such, the said decision is liable to be reversed. However, the decision of the learned trial Court on counter-claim issue No.2 is found to be sustainable on facts as well as in law. f. Accordingly, the suit filed by the respondents would fail on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation. 19. Discussion and decision on Point of Determination No.II: a. On a perusal of the trial Court records, it appears that the claim as well as the counter-claim was based on a document which is stated to be "lease agreement". f. Accordingly, the suit filed by the respondents would fail on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation. 19. Discussion and decision on Point of Determination No.II: a. On a perusal of the trial Court records, it appears that the claim as well as the counter-claim was based on a document which is stated to be "lease agreement". In the plaint the respondents has projected the said document to be a lease agreement. On a perusal of the contents of the said document, it is seen that the said Memorandum of Agreement dated 01.06.2001 is described as "MANAGEMENT OF AIR FORCE TEA GARDEN". The said agreement is between "The President Service Institute, Air Force Station, Jorhat" and "Shri M. Rehman, General Manager of Degubber Tea Estate". From the contents of the said agreement, it appears that the Second Party had expressed his desire to look after the management of Lohpohia Tea Garden belonging to Air Force Station. The said agreement is couched in such a language that the word "rent", "lease", etc., connoting creation of tenancy as well as reference to any form of lease/ rent is avoided. The clause 5 thereof is reproduced herein below:- "5. The Party of the Second Part will have to pay a sum of Rs. 5,30,500/- (Rupees Five lakh thirty thousand five hundred only) to the Party of the First Part in advance before 01 Jun 2001. The amount so decided will be deposited by the Party of the Second Part quarterly by 05th of the month on which it falls due. If the 05th of the month falls on a Sunday or a Holiday, the amount will have to be deposited by the next working day." b. From the subsequent communications, being letter dated 30.04.2002 (Ext.2), and other communications between the parties, it appears that both sides have accepted the said "MANAGEMENT OF AIR FORCE TEA GARDEN" to be a lease deed and the parties have acted accordingly. c. Therefore, going by the contents of the said agreement (Ext.1), the lessee would only be "Shri M. Rehman, General Manager of Degubber Tea Estate". Now the said "Shri M. Rehman, General Manager of Degubber Tea Estate" is not arrayed as a defendant in the suit. However, The Manager, Degubber Tea Estate is arrayed as Proforma Defendant No.4 in the plaint. Now the said "Shri M. Rehman, General Manager of Degubber Tea Estate" is not arrayed as a defendant in the suit. However, The Manager, Degubber Tea Estate is arrayed as Proforma Defendant No.4 in the plaint. d. Therefore, notwithstanding that the respondents are communicating with M/s. Lohpohia Tea Estate, there is nothing on record to show that the lessee under "Management of Air Force Tea Garden" was substituted by M/s. Lohpohia Tea Estate. e. Interestingly, M/s. Lohpohia Tea Estate is not even a party to the suit. However, the Manager, Lohpohia Tea Estate is arrayed as Defendant No.3 in the suit and is the appellant No.3 in this appeal. f. There are no pleadings or documentary evidence from both sides to establish the nature of constitution of M/s. Lohpohia Tea Estate. In paragraph 2 of the plaint, it is stated that " The Proforma Defendant is the Manager of Degubber TE, a sister concern of Lohpohia TE." g. Thus, it is seen that even if Memorandum of Agreement dated 01.06.2001 for "Management of Air Force Tea Garden" (Ext.1) is accepted to be a valid lease agreement, by no stretch of imagination, can the appellants-defendants No.1, 2 and 3, namely, (1) Lohpohia Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., (2) Managing Director, Lohpohia Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd., and (3) Manager, Lohpohia Tea Estate can be said to be a "statutory tenant" of a "tenant in sufferance". The said appellants- defendants may have some other status, but in the eyes of law, they are not "statutory tenant" of a "tenant in sufferance". h. There is no document on record to show and establish the creation of sub tenancy by "Shri M. Rehman, General Manager of Degubber Tea Estate", by inducting Lohpohia Tea Estate as a sub- tenant. Moreover, no document is exhibited by the respondents to show whether all the appellants or any one particular appellant is accepted to be their lessee for period between 01.06.2002 to 31.05.2004. i. In any event, having not arrayed the said purported lessee under Ext.1, namely, "Shri M. Rehman, General Manager of Degubber Tea Estate" as one of the principal defendants, in the opinion of this Court, the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. i. In any event, having not arrayed the said purported lessee under Ext.1, namely, "Shri M. Rehman, General Manager of Degubber Tea Estate" as one of the principal defendants, in the opinion of this Court, the suit is bad for non- joinder of necessary parties. j. This point is found to be intriguing because there is a specific statement in paragraph 2 of the plaint that M/s. Lohpohia Tea Estate is owned by Respondent No.1 Company i.e. Lohpohia Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. and as mentioned herein before, it is stated that " The Proforma Defendant is the Manager of Degubber TE, a sister concern of Lohpohia TE." There is merely a statement in paragraph 5 of the plaint that " M/s. Degubber Tea Estate and M/s. Lohpohia Tea Estate are sister concern and all correspondence and dealings were carried out by M/s. Lohpohia Tea Estate on behalf of M/s. Degubber Tea Estate." Thus, from the pleadings, it is very clear and apparent that the dues are payable by M/s. Degubber Tea Estate, who are corresponding through M/s. Lohpohia Tea Estate. k. Thus, on failure to implead M/s. Degubber Tea Estate, the respondent could not have sued Respondent No.1 Company i.e. Lohpohia Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. for recovery of their alleged dues, without any pleading and without establishing that Lohpohia Tea Co. Pvt. Ltd. was the owner of M/s. Degubber Tea Estate. l. Similarly, for the same reasons, the counter-claim of the appellants is also not found to be maintainable because there is nothing on record to establish that M/s. Lohpohia Tea Estate was entitled to claim the cost of expenditure incurred in managing the tea growing areas leased out by the respondents to Shri M. Rehman, General Manager of Degubber Tea Estate" vide the agreement dated 01.06.2001 (Ext.1). m. However, in view of the finding and decision in respect of point of determination no. I, by which the suit is found to be barred by limitation, this Court is not inclined to dismiss the suit of the respondents as well as the counter-claim of the appellants on the ground of non- joinder of necessary parties. 20. m. However, in view of the finding and decision in respect of point of determination no. I, by which the suit is found to be barred by limitation, this Court is not inclined to dismiss the suit of the respondents as well as the counter-claim of the appellants on the ground of non- joinder of necessary parties. 20. Discussion and decision on Point of Determination No.III: a. On appreciating the decision of the learned trial Court on issue No.3 of suit, it is seen that on the basis of statement made by PW-1 in his cross examination, the learned trial Court had held that as per the lease deed, Lohpohia Tea Estate planted and developed the area of tea plantation. In this connection, in respect of point of determination No.II, this Court has held that as per Memorandum of Agreement dated 01.06.2001 (Ext.1), Shri M. Rehman, Manager of Degubber Tea Estate was the lessee. There is no pleading by either side to show whether there was any acquiescence on part of the respondents for M/s. Lohpohia Tea Estate to carry out plantation and to develop the area of tea plantation. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that if the said M/s. Lohpohia Tea Estate has made any expenditure, it was not in terms of Ext.1, as such, this Court cannot concur with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in respect of issue no.2 in respect of the suit and the said finding is hereby reversed. b. Issue No. 7 as decided by the learned trial Court is visited now. It is seen that the learned trial Court had heavily relied on the admission made by the appellant No.3 i.e. Manager Lohpohia Tea Estate vide letter dated 08.09.2004 (Ext.9), by which the appellants agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 9,41,000/- to the respondents. However, in connection with point of determination No. II, this Court has held that the suit filed on 14.11.2011 for lease rent for the period from 01.06.2002 to 31.05.2004 was barred by limitation, the decision of the learned trial Court on issues No. 7 in respect of the suit cannot be sustained. c. Coming to issues No.4 in respect of the suit, it is seen that the payment of Rs. 5,30,500/- made by the appellants to the respondents prior to 01.06.2002 is not the subject matter of claim by the respondents. c. Coming to issues No.4 in respect of the suit, it is seen that the payment of Rs. 5,30,500/- made by the appellants to the respondents prior to 01.06.2002 is not the subject matter of claim by the respondents. Moreover, if the appellants had paid a sum of Rs. 5,30,500/- to the respondents before 01.06.2002, the same cannot be in terms of Ext.1 because none of the defendants and proforma defendants were the lessees in Ext.1. Therefore, the issue No.4 of the suit is unnecessary, as it not the subject matter of the claim in the suit or in the counter-claim. Therefore, this issue is struck of, being unnecessary for deciding any prayer made in the suit by the parties. d. In respect of issue No.5 in respect of the suit, it is seen that this issue has also been wrongly framed. Firstly, it is fundamental that the Manager of a Tea Estate does not cultivate land, but it is presumed that the firm must be doing it because the Manager is merely an employee. As held earlier, the lessee in Ext.1 is not the Manager, Lohpohia Tea Estate, but one Sri M. Rehman, Manager, Degubber Tea Estate is the lessee. Therefore, if the Manager, Lohpohia Tea Estate is carrying out the cultivation, such cultivation, in the absence of any evidence, cannot be held to be related to Ext.1, but at best, it can be said to be a case of novation of contract. Hence, this Court cannot concur with the decision of the learned trial Court on issue No.5. e. Issue No.6 in respect of the suit is taken up now. This issue also appears to be wrongly framed, as the issue does not relate to the claim made in the suit. Moreover, the decision by the learned trial Court is not in accordance with the issue framed. Although the issue is whether Lohpohia Tea Estate sustained loss of Rs. 86,892/- from the year ended on 31.05.2002 and Rs. 53,083/- from the year ended on 31.03.2003, the learned trial Court had arrived at a finding that as per the agreement, all expenses were to be borne by the appellants, as such, the appellants cannot claim any amount incurred by them, which was not the scope of the enquiry under the issue. 53,083/- from the year ended on 31.03.2003, the learned trial Court had arrived at a finding that as per the agreement, all expenses were to be borne by the appellants, as such, the appellants cannot claim any amount incurred by them, which was not the scope of the enquiry under the issue. On appreciating the evidence on record, it is seen that the appellants had neither exhibited their books of accounts nor they had exhibited their balance sheet. Thus, in the absence of balance sheet being proved in evidence, a mere exhibiting of many expenses vouchers cannot prove that any losses were sustained by the appellants. Moreover, whether the appellants had suffered profit and/or loss in their operation was not within the scope of the prayers made in the plaint or in the counter-claim. There was no pleading by the parties that the payment of lease rental was linked with the profit and/or or loss of the lessee. Therefore, it appears to this Court that not only an unnecessary issue was framed by the learned trial Court, but the issue also appears to be incorrectly answered. Therefore, this issue is struck of, being unnecessary for deciding any prayer made in the suit by the parties. f. In respect of issue No.1 of the suit, this Court is of the view that as the claim made in the suit, notwithstanding that although it was projected that there was cause of action for the suit, but having found that the claim was barred by limitation, this Court is constrained to hold that the cause of action, if any, was barred by limitation. Hence, this Court cannot concur with the finding on issue No.1 given by the learned trial Court. g. In respect of issue No.8, in view of the decision of this Court in issues No. 1 and 2, the finding of the learned trial Court is liable to be reversed and set aside, which is hereby done by holding that the suit being barred by limitation, the respondents were not entitled to any relief in the suit. Hence, the suit filed by the respondent stands dismissed. 21. The remaining issues relating to Counter-claim are taken up now. Hence, the suit filed by the respondent stands dismissed. 21. The remaining issues relating to Counter-claim are taken up now. a. In respect of issue No.3, although the learned trial Court had framed the issue in the following manner- "Whether the counter-claim is bad for nonpayment of proper Court fee?", it is seen that the real issue had escaped the notice of the learned Court below. It is seen that the learned Court had held that the counter-claim was for declaration that the appellants are entitled to recover Rs. 9,73,060/- from the respondents but the claim was not for realization of the amount, the counter-claim, which is considered to be a cross suit, and was only for a mere declaration without any consequential relief, such a claim is specifically barred under proviso to section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. However, as the counter-claim is not sustainable, being barred by limitation, this Court is not inclined to dismiss the counter-claim on this count as the parties have not been heard on this ground. Nonetheless, this Court concurs with the decision on the issue No.3 on counter-claim. b. As regards issue no.4 of the counter-claim, it is seen that there is no evidence to show that the respondents had assured extension of the lease, which can be culled out from the fact that no person who had allegedly given the assurance for extension of lease was named. It is seen that the appellants did not make any prayer in their counter-claim for extension of the lease and moreover, on the face of the letter dated 30.04.2002 (Ext.2), by which extension of lease was refused. Thus, this Court would concur with the finding of the learned trial Court in respect of issue No.4 of counterclaim. c. As regards issue no.5 of the counter-claim, it is seen that the respondents had been able to show that vide letter dated 08.09.2004 (Ext.9), the respondent No.3 had promised to pay Rs. 9,41,000/- to the respondent No.2 for the period from 01.05.2002 to 31.05.2004, but failed to make any payment. The stand of the appellants in their written statement and in the evidence of DW-1 was that they had no knowledge about the letter dated 03.08.2004 (Ext.8) and letter dated 04.09.2008 (Ext.10) issued by Mr. S. Talukdar and there was no record of the said letters. The stand of the appellants in their written statement and in the evidence of DW-1 was that they had no knowledge about the letter dated 03.08.2004 (Ext.8) and letter dated 04.09.2008 (Ext.10) issued by Mr. S. Talukdar and there was no record of the said letters. But no effort was made to show that the said Mr. S. Talukdar was no longer in the roll and/or employment of the appellants by producing convincing evidence to show that his service was terminated. Although the respondents had relied on the said letters for their claim in the suit, the appellants did not seek any relief regarding the said two letters dated 03.08.2004 (Ext.8) and 04.09.2008 (Ext.10). Nonetheless, as the claim and the counter-claim are both barred by limitation, the decision of the learned trial Court on issue No.5 of the counter-claim is concurred with. d. In respect of issue no.6, as the respondents by issuing letter dated 30.04.2002 (Ext.2) had informed the decision of the respondents not to extend the lease, in the absence of any fresh contract for paying maintenance cost, there was no requirement for the respondents to pay any maintenance for any period beyond 31.05.2002. Therefore, although the learned trial Court had answered the issue by holding that the respondents did not pay the maintenance cost of Rs. 5,000/- per month, it must also be held that there was no existing or subsisting contract between the parties which entitled the appellants to maintenance cost of Rs. 5,000/- per month from the respondents. e. In respect of issue No.7 of the counter-claim, it appears that either the issue was incorrectly framed and/or the learned trial Court had erred in answering the issue. The issue was "whether the defendant violated any clause of renewal/ extension of lease period?", which was answered by holding that although the lease was not renewed but the defendants are in possession of the land and the appellants did not pay the lease amount of Rs. 5,30,500/- and the respondents did not pay maintenance cost. The issue was "whether the defendant violated any clause of renewal/ extension of lease period?", which was answered by holding that although the lease was not renewed but the defendants are in possession of the land and the appellants did not pay the lease amount of Rs. 5,30,500/- and the respondents did not pay maintenance cost. As this Court has held that the lease in question vide Ext.1 was not with any of the appellants and/or defendants in the suit, there was no way that any of the appellants could have violated clause of renewal and/or extension moreso, when the said agreement was never renewed, as such, there cannot be any violation of an agreement which is not renewed/ extended. Therefore, this issue is struck of, being unnecessary for deciding any prayer made in the suit by the parties. f. In respect of issues No. 8 and 9 of counter-claim, in view of the finding in respect of issue No.2 of the counter-claim, wherein this Court has held that the counter-claim is barred by limitation, both the issues are rightly decided by the learned trial Court. 22. Discussion and Decision on Point of Determination No.IV: In view of the discussions and decision on point of determination No.I, II and III above, RFA 69/2014, challenging the decree of dismissal of the counter-claim filed by the appellants- defendants fails and the appeal stands dismissed. Consequently, the decree of dismissal of the counter-claim in MS 35/2011 stands affirmed. However, RFA No. 70/2014, challenging the decree passed by the learned trial Court in the suit filed by the respondents is allowed and the decree passed in MS 35/2011 stands reversed by dismissing the suit. The parties are left to bear their own cost all throughout. The appellant is entitled to refund of the deposit of 50% of the decreetal sum made before this Court. ORDER 23. The appeal, being RFA No. 70/2014 filed by the appellants- defendants in MS No. 35/2011 stands allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court stands reversed. As a result, the suit filed by the respondents- plaintiffs is dismissed, being barred by limitation. In so far as the appeal, being RFA No. 69/2014 filed by the appellants- counter-claimants is concerned, the appeal stands dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, thereby dismissing the counter-claim stands affirmed. 24. As a result, the suit filed by the respondents- plaintiffs is dismissed, being barred by limitation. In so far as the appeal, being RFA No. 69/2014 filed by the appellants- counter-claimants is concerned, the appeal stands dismissed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, thereby dismissing the counter-claim stands affirmed. 24. The appellants shall be entitled to refund of a sum of Rs. 4,70,500/- (Rupees Four lakh seventy thousand five hundred only), being 50% of the decreetal sum, which was deposited by the appellants before the Registry of this Court on 11.03.2015, pursuant to order dated 11.02.2015 passed by this Court in M.C. No. 3555/2014 in connection with RFA No. 70/2014, and was withdrawn by the respondents on 27.07.2015 vide cheque No. 413960 dated 27.07.2015 drawn on "Air Force Public Fund Account, Jorhat", duly received by Sri H. Vaiphei, Flight Lieutenant. Accordingly, the respondents are granted (2) two month's time from today to deposit the said amount with the Registry of this Court, failing which the said amount shall carry simple interest @ 12% p.a. on and from the date of this order till realization. 25. Both the parties are left to bear their own cost all throughout. 26. Return back the LCR.