ALKA VINAYAK PENDSE Vs. K V KIRPEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question arising for determination in this Civil Revision Application is regarding the computation of limitation period for the recovery of rent paid to the landlord which is determined as excessive payment on account of the standard rent getting fixed at a lower amount.

(2.) The facts of the case are not in dispute. The petitioners, original plaintiffs, had filed Miscellaneous Application No. 82 of 1969 on 28-14969 for fixing of standard rent of the premises occupied by them and owned by the opponent, original defendant. In that application a prayer was made for permission to deduct from future rent amount recovered by the landlord in excess of the standard rent that may be fixed. This application was decided on 13-10-1970 and the standard rent was fixed at Rs. 50/- per month as against the contractual rent of Rs. 245/-per month- However, the Court did not grant any adjustment of the overpay meat observing that the same was beyond the jurisdiction of the Court to which the application was made. On 16-10-1970, therefore the notice (Ex. 28) was served by the petitioners against the landlord seeking to recover excess payment made during the months of July 1968 to December 1968. The suit out of which the present revision petition arises, being Civil Suit No. 3328 of 1970, was filed by the petitioners against the respondent for getting a sum of Rs. 1,170/- as the excess rent and Rs, 10/- more as notice charges. The Small Causes Court Judge, Poona, who heard the suit, allowed the decree in a sum of Rs. 985/- and proportionate costs with future interest at 6 p. c. p. a. This was for the excess rent paid during the months of August 1968 to December 1968 and the notice charges. Excess payment for July 1968 was taken as time-barred. Civil Appeal No. 55 of 3972 was filed against that decision in the District Court at Poona, The Extra Assistant Judge, Poona, allowed the appeal and the decree passed by the trial Court was set aside. According to the learned Assistant Judge, as the claim was not filed within 6 months of the accrual of the cause of action as required by Section 20 of the Bombay Rent Act. In his opinion, under Sec, 14 of the Limitation Act, there could not be the exclusion of time taken in prosecuting the standard rent application. Although the learned Judge held that by reason of Section 29 (2) of the Limitation Act, Section 14 was applicable in computing the period of limitation, Sub-section (1) of Section 14, which governed the proceedings, was inapplicable, because the matter in issue In Civil Suit and in the earlier proceedings was not the same.

(3.) Aggrieved by that decision, the plaintiffs have preferred this revision petition. Section 20 of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947, to the extent relevant, is as follows:-- Any amount paid on account of rent after the date of the coming into operation of this Act shall, except in so far as payment thereof is in accordance with the provisions of this Act, be recoverable by the tenant from the landlord to whom it was paid or on whose behalf it was received or from his legal representatives at any time within a period of six months from the date of payment and may, without prejudice to any other remedy for recovery, be deducted by such tenant from any rent payable by him to such landlord." The learned trial judge has held the claim for the months of August 1968 to December, 1968 recoverable. On the phraseology of Section 20 (1) of the Bombay Rent Act for recovering the excess payment for the above noted months a suit ought to have been filed in February 1969 so as to keep the claim for August 1968 in time. The suit here has actually been filed on 2nd of November 1970, so that prima facie no amount asked for is sought to be recovered within the period of six months.