Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010065682026 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/111/2026 SRI PRATAP DEY S/O LATE PRABHAT CHANDRA DEY, R/O. VILLAGE- BARUAHBARI, SIYALEKHAITI ROAD, P.O- SONAPUR, DIST-KAMRUP M, ASSAM PIN- 782402 2: SRI ALOK DEY S/O LATE PRABHAT CHANDRA DEY R/O. VILLAGE- BARUAHBARI SIYALEKHAITI ROAD P.O- SONAPUR DIST-KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN-78240 VERSUS THE SONAPUR TEA CO PVT LTD AND ANR. A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT, 1913 HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 61-B, PARK STREET 2-B NEELAM, KOLKATA-700016 AND ONE OF ITS PLACES OF BUSINESS AT SONAPUR TEA ESTATE, P.O- SONAPUR, KAMRUPM, ASSAM,PIN-782402 AND REP. BY ITS ONE OF THE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, SRI. SOURAB SARKAR 2:SRI SOURAB SARKAR THE PRINCIPAL OFFICERS AND POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF THE SONAPUR TEA CO. PVT. LTD. SONAPUR TEA ESTATE P.OSONAPUR DIST- KAMRUP M ASSAM PIN-78240 Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. A K AZAD, MS. S K LASKAR,MR. N HAQUE,MR. P K ROYCHOUDHURY Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 27.04.2026 Heard Mr. P.K. Roychoudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. N. Haque, learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 151 of the CPC, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 19.02.2026, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (trial court hereinafter), in petition No. 368/2023. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 19.02.2026, the learned trial court has dismissed the prayer made by the petitioners herein in petition No. 368/2023 for calling NJ case records, from the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. 4. Mr. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents herein, as plaintiffs, had instituted a title suit, being Title Suit No. 39/2022, for ejectment of the petitioners/defendants and also for recovery of arrear licence fee etc., before the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. Subsequently, the suit was transferred to the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 2, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati. Thereafter, in the said suit, the petitioners herein filed a petition, being petition No. 368/2023 for calling the NJ case records from the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati to prove that he has been depositing rent with the court. The petitioners herein filed another petition, being petition No. 369/2023, under Order 11 Rule 14 read with Section 30 of the CPC, for passing order for Page No.# 3/6 production of documents. Thereafter, vide order dated 07.09.2023, the learned trial court had allowed both the petitions. 4.1. Mr. Roychoudhury further submits that the order, dated 07.09.2023, was challenged before this Court in CRP(IO) No. 334/2023 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 13.03.2024, interfering with the order dated 07.09.2023, passed in petition Nos. 368/2023 and 369/2023 and directed the learned trial court to consider the petitions a fresh. Thereafter, the learned trial court vide impugned order, dated 19.02.2026, has dismissed the same. 4.2. Mr. Roychoudhury further submits that the impugned order, dated 19.02.2026, is illegal and arbitrary inasmuch as, the learned trial court has considered the petitioners/defendants as licencee, in view of their written statement and that the leave and licence agreement was expired on 30.11.2021 and that the petitioners/defendants are possessing the suit premises as licencee, not as a tenant and that their relation would not change to landlord and tenant and since there was no landlord and tenant relationship between the parties, the deposit of the rent in the court would not be helpful to the petitioners/defendants to defend their case. Mr. Choudhury also submits that the concerned parties entered into the said leave and licence agreement, under the provision of The Indian Easement Act and said Act is not applicable in Assam. In support of his submission, Mr. Roychoudhury has referred to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Panchugopal Barua and Others vs. Umesh Chandra Goswami and Others, reported in (1997) 4 SCC 713, especially paragraph No. 13, wherein it has been held that the Easements Act, under which the leave and licence is granted, has no application in the State of Assam. 4.3. Mr. Roychoudhury further submits that if the Indian Easement Act is not applicable in the state of Assam, then the parties will be governed by Assam Urban Page No.# 4/6 Area Rent Control Act and the relation between the parties would be change to landlord and tenant and in that view of the matter, if the NJ case records are not allowed to call for, from the learned Civil Judge (Junior Divison) No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati, the petitioners herein would suffer serious prejudice. He also submits that calling of the records will not cause delay in the progress of the suit and therefore, it is contended to allow this petition. 5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court has carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also perused the impugned order”, dated 19.02.2026, and the also the decision of Panchugopal Barua (Supra) wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “12. The approach of the learned Single Judge in our opinion was erroneous. Once it was found that the Easements Act had no application to the State of Assam, the question of “clearing the way for Section 60(b) of the Act to operate” cannot at all arise. Of course, the principles of “justice, equity and good conscience” on which Section 60(b) of the Easements Act rests may apply in the facts and circumstances of a given case but that is not to say that though the Easements Act does not apply, provisions of Section 60(b) of the Easements Act still “operate”. Since the legislature did not intend the Act to apply to Assam, the learned Single Judge could not have defeated that intendment by holding that “the defendant of the present case was protected by Section 60(b) of the Act”. It is not permissible to extend the provisions of an Act, made not applicable by the legislature to a State, by a judicial order as it amounts to enacting legislation by the High Court, a power not vested in the judiciary.” 5.1. In view of above, there appears to be substance in the submission of Mr. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Page No.# 5/6 6. It is also a fact that in the written statement, the petitioners/ defendants, in paragraph No. 1, have categorically stated, that they have been running a business in the suit premises since the year 1989, initially as a lessee and thereafter as a tenant and finally as a licencee and they never refused to pay monthly licence fee or monthly rent to the plaintiffs/respondents. But, on refusal to take the monthly licence fee, the petitioners/defendants deposited the same in the court, since the month of November, 2021. 9. Thus, having examined the impugned order, dated 19.02.2026, from the aforesaid stand point, this Court is unable to agree with the submission of Mr. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, that the impugned order suffers from any infirmity or illegality. 10. However, as contended by Mr. Roychoudhury, if, in view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Panchugopal Barua (Supra), the Indian Easements Act, 1882, which provides for the leave and licence and the parties herein are admittedly governed, is not applicable in the State of Assam, then the matter would stand in a different footing and it would render the leave and licence agreement between the petitioners and respondents otiose. 11. In that view of the matter, the submission of Mr. Roychoudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners, that entire relationship between the parties will be changed to landlord and tenant relationship cannot be ignored and under such circumstances, the requirement of calling the records of NJ case to establish that the petitioners/defendants have been depositing the monthly rent before the learned court cannot be underestimate. 12. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to dispose of this petition, at this motion stage itself, by directing the learned trial court to call for the records of NJ case from the court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Page No.# 6/6 Guwahati. 13. Parties have to bear their own costs. JUDGE Comparing Assistant