BOMMISETTI PITCHAYYA Vs. CHANDRAPATI KOTAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit filed for recovery of rent on the Small Cause side before the Additional District Munsif, Ongole, the contention of the petitioner-plaintiff was that he was entitled to rent at an enhanced rate of Rs. 20 per month, as the tenant-respondenc had not vacated the premises in spite of determination of tenancy. The suit was resisted by the respondent alleging that the claim was time barred and that in a previous suit instituted by the same party, no arrears of rent were claimed. The learned Additional District Munsif, Ongole, on a consideration of the evidence, held that the respondent was liable to pay the plaintiff for the period 1st December, 1956 to 22nd January, 1958 at Rs. 12-8-0 per month. Part of the claim was found to be time-barred and was disallowed, and a decree was tendered in favour of the petitioner-plaintiff for the period 1st December, 1956 to 22nd January, 1958 at Rs. 12-8-0 per month with interest and proportionate costs. It is against this order that the revision petition was filed.

(2.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the lower Court was not justified in applying Article 110 of the Limitation Act to the suit. His argument is that, having regard to the circumstances of the case, Article 115 was applicable, and as the plaintiff was able to get possession on 22nd January, 1958 and the suit was instituted on 22nd December, 1959, the entire claim was within time, as the breach which was continuing had ceased to exist on the date the plaintiff obtained delivery of possession. The learned Counsel on the other side has urged that as the respondent was not a tenant, the tenancy having determined, he was more or less a trespasser and, therefore, Article 39 was attracted ; and the lower Court was justified in disallowing part of the claim se't up by the petitioner.

(3.) The admitted facts are that the respondent was a lessee of the petitioner on a monthly rent of Rs. 12-8-0 and the lease expired in the year 1953. Subsequent to it, the plaintiff gave a notice, Exhibit A-1 dated 12th November, 1953, to the respondent, directing him to vacate the premises or pay higher rent of Rs. 20 per month. This was followed by a subsequent notice, Exhibit B-5 dated 21st April, 1955. Immediately thereafter, a suit was instituted for recovery of possession etc., which Was decreed and in the execution of the decree, possession of the suit premises was delivered to the petitioner on 22nd January, 1958 ; so that, after the determination of the tenancy, till 22nd January, 1958, the respondent was in occupation of the premises without paying any rent to the petitioner. In the circumstances, the petitioner was certainly entitled to get compensation for use and occupation of the premises.