BIJOY RANJAN DEY Vs. ATIN KUMAR GHOSH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by the defendant tenant from a decree for arrears of rent in Money Suit No. 70 of 1957. In March, 1949 the defendant became a monthly tenant of premises No. 12, Dwarik Mukherjee Road, Behala under the plaintiff landlord at a monthly rent of Rs. 65/-. In May, 1949 the defendant applied to the Rent Controller for fixation of standard rent. The Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 20/- per month, but on appeal by the landlord this order was set aside and the case was remanded for a fresh hearing. At the rehearing the Controller fixed the rent at Rs. 25/- per month, but on fresh appeal by the landlord the District Judge, Alipore finally fixed the standard rent at Rs. 56/11/-annas with effect from 1st June, 1949. In April, 1954 the landlord instituted against the defendant Title Suit No. 348 of 1954 for ejectment and mesne profits. On or about January 26, 1955 the defendant vacated the premises. On July 21, 1955 the landlord obtained a decree for mesne profits from April 1, 1954 to January 26, 1955 in Title Suit No. 348 of 1954. On May 10, 1956 the plaintiff filed money suit No. 79 of 1957 claiming arrears of rent from March 1, 1949 upto May 31, 1949 at Rs. 65/- per month and from June 1, 1949 upto March 31, 1954 at Rs. 56/11/- annas as also interest amounting to Rs. 57/- less Rs. 1341/- deposited by the defendant with the Controller on account of rent for the aforesaid period. The learned Munsif passed a decree for arrears of rent from May, 1953 to March, 1954 amounting to Rs. 403/9/- only. On appeal the learned Subordinate Judge has decreed the plaintiff's claim in full. The defendant contended that the suit was barred by Order 2, Rule 2, C. P. C. 1908 but that plea is now abandoned. The principal defence to the suit now is that the claim is barred by the law of limitation. In our opinion the learned Judge rightly held that the claim for rent at the rate of Rs. 56/11/- per month for the period from June 1, 1949 upto March 31, 1954 is not barred by the law of limitation.

(2.) The proceedings for fixation of rent were instituted while the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1948 was in force. After the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 came into force those proceedings were continued under Sub-section (3) of Section 17 of that Act and the standard rent was finally fixed in accordance with that Act. In my opinion Section 10 of the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 imposed a statutory obligation on the tenant to pay standard rent as from the date specified in the order fixing the standard rent and the cause of action to enforce this statutory obligation arose on the making of the order. I have come to this conclusion for the reasons given in my judgment in Brojo Behari v. Ved Prokash. In this case the standard rent under the 1950 Act was finally fixed by the order of the District Judge dated the 16th February 1954. In view of that order the tenant was under a statutory obligation to pay the standard rent at the rate of Rs. 56/11/- annas as from June 1949. This statutory obligation came into existence on February 16, 1954 when the standard rent was finally fixed and the cause of action to enforce this statutory obligation arose on that date. Consequently whether Article 110 or Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act applies to the case, the claim of the plaintiff for the standard rent at the rate of Rs. 56/11/- for the period from June 1, 1949 upto March 31, 1954 is not barred by the law of limitation,

(3.) In my opinion, however, the claim of the plaintiff for arrears of rent for the period from March 1, 1949 to May 31, 1949 is barred by limitation. The plaintiff seeks to recover for this period contractual rent at the rate of Rs. 65/-per month. This contractual rent fell due from month to month. The suit to enforce the claim for contractual rent is governed by Article 110 of the Indian Limitation Act. The cause of action to enforce the claim for the contractual rent arose at the end of every month. The period of limitation for recovery of this rent has expired long prior to the institution of the suit. The order of the District Judge dated February 16, 1954 fixed the standard rent as from June, 1949. No standard rent was fixed for the anterior period, from March 1, 1949 upto May 31, 1949, nor does the plaintiff seek to recover in the suit standard rent for the aforesaid period. The only obligation of the defendant to pay rent for the aforesaid period is contractual and the suit in so far as it seeks to impose that contractual obligation is barred by the law of limitation. The learned Judge, therefore, erroneously decreed the plaintiff's claim for rent for the aforesaid period. It is no longer contended that the period of limitation for this claim is extended by reason of Section 14 of the Indian Limitation Act or by reason of any acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 19 and 20 of the Act.