NATESA CHETTY Vs. V M SUBBA RAYA CHETTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision arises out of a suit for arrears of rent. In the suit, rent was claimed from 1-9-1952 to 20-2-1956. A sum of Rs. 75 claimed to have been spent by the defendant for repairs was admitted by the plaintiff who gave credit for this amount. A sum of Rs. 266-14-0 remitted by money order by the defendant on 202-1956 was also given credit to. The defence was that the period of tenancy commenced from 9-2-1953 and further that the rate of rent was only Rs. 12. The defendant also contended that he had completely discharged all arrears of rent due. Another sum of Rs. 12 and odd which he alleged he spent for repairs was also claimed.

(2.) THE suit was originally decreed. There was a revision petition and this court held that in so far as the tenancy was concerned, the period was between february 1953 and February 1956, and that the rate of rent was Rs. 15 per month. The findings of the trial court in this regard were accepted by this court. But the decree was nevertheless set aside for the reason that the Plea of the defendant that a certain part of the arrear claimed by the plaintiff in the suit was beyond the period of limitation was not examined by the lower court. In overcoming the bar of limitation. the plaintiff has relied upon certain recitals in Ex. A. 2, a registered reply sent by the defendant. What exactly was the scope of the acknowledgment Contained therein or the right of the plaintiff to appropriate and whether the appropriation was in accordance with the directions contained in Ex. A. 2 were matters which had not been considered by the trial court. Accordingly, the suit was remanded for fresh disposal. The scope of the further enquiry was limited to the issue whether the claim for rent from February 1953 to July 1954 was or was not barred by limitation.

(3.) THE learned District Munsif has examined this question. In the written statement of the defendant, the specific plea In this regard was that the plaintiff was not entitled to adjust or appropriate the sum of Rs. 266-14-0 towards the rent for the earlier period that had become barred by limitation, contrary to the specific intention and direction of the defendant that it was for discharge of all arrears. In application of this statement, it has to be mentioned that in the notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, his claim was that the defendant was in arrears born september 1952 onwards. In Ex. A. 2, the defendant admitted the tenancy only from February 1953, onwards and denied the right of the plaintiff to recover any amount prior to February 1953, and he purported to remit the sum towards the arrears from February 1953 onwards, after taking credit for certain expenses incurred by him. The computation that he made was on the basis that the rent was only Rs. 12 per month and not Rs. 15 per month. The scope of these recitals has now to be considered.