Occupancy tenants under the Assam Tenancy Act are mandatorily liable to pay fair rent to landlords.

The plaintiffs (respondents) claimed to be occupancy tenants over the suit land based on a ‘Rioty Kutcha Khatian’ issued in 1967 in favor of their predecessors under the father of Defendant No. 1 (appellant).

They alleged that although they paid rent (1/5th share of crops), the defendant attempted illegal eviction.

The defendant contested the suit and filed a counter-claim, asserting that the plaintiffs ceased to be tenants in 2012 due to non-payment of rent and encroached upon additional land.

The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, confirming their occupancy status and permanent injunction, while dismissing the counter-claim.

The First Appellate Court affirmed this decision, noting the defendant failed to prove the alleged default in rent.

1. Whether an occupancy tenant is mandatorily liable to pay rent/proceeds out of the land so used belonging to the landlord?

2. Whether the plaintiffs lost their status as tenants due to alleged non-payment of rent since 2012?

Section 12 of the Assam (Temporarily Settled Areas) Tenancy Act, 1971 mandates that an occupancy tenant pay fair and equitable rent.

Section 23 defines the rights of occupancy tenants as permanent and heritable, while Section 28 sets the maximum rent (e.g., 1/5th of the produce for crop rent).

The principle of Concurrent Findings of Fact, as established in Narayanan Rajendran v. Lekshmy Sarojini, which restricts the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 100 of the CPC from interfering with factual findings unless perverse.

The Limitation Act was applied, noting a three-year window for the recovery of rent arrears.

The Court observed that under Section 12 of the 1971 Act, the obligation of an occupancy tenant to pay rent is indeed mandatory.

Both lower courts found that the defendant provided no cogent evidence (such as rent receipts or timely legal notices) to prove the plaintiffs stopped paying rent in 2012.

The defendant's plea that old age prevented legal action was dismissed as unsupported by medical evidence.

Since the defendant only demanded rent after the plaintiffs filed their suit in 2016, the High Court held that the "preponderance of probability" favored the tenants.

Additionally, the court noted that even if a default had occurred, the counter-claim for rent since 2012 was partially barred by the three-year limitation period.

However, on the facts of this specific case, it held that the appellant failed to prove the plaintiffs' default.

The court affirmed the lower courts' concurrent findings that the plaintiffs' occupancy rights remained intact and the counter-claim for eviction and arrears was unsustainable.

The Second Appeal was dismissed.