SHASHIKANT YESHWANT LIMAYE Vs. CHINTAMAN VINAYAK KOLHATKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.</Jpara> <Jpara>[2] BY this petition, the petitioners takes exception to the judgment and order dated 17 October, 1994 passed by the learned Ilnd Additional District Judge, Pune allowing the appeal filed by the respondents landlords and thereby passing a decree for eviction against the petitioners.

(3.) Articles 66 and 67 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are relevant. They both relate to a suit for possession of immovable property and read thus : Article Description of suit Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run 66.For possession of immovable property when the plaintiff has become entitled to possession by reason of any forfeiture or breach of condition. Twelve years When the forfeiture is incurred or the condition is broken 67.By a landlord to recover possession from a tenant Twelve years When the tenancy is determined

(4.) Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the suit was governed by Article 66 of the Limitation Act inasmuch as no notice for termination of tenancy was required to be issued in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dhanpal Chettiar vs. Yasodai Ammal, 1979 AIR(SC) 1745 The respondent became entitled to possession by reason of statutory forfeiture of tenancy on breach of statutory condition of tenancy, namely acquisition of suitable residential premises by the petitioner No. 1 tenant elsewhere. Acquisition of suitable residence elsewhere is a statutory ground for eviction provided under section 13(1)(1) of the Bombay Rent Act. The suit filed after 12 years of accrual of cause of action was barred by limitation.