BROJA BEHARI SEN Vs. VED PROKASH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a suit for the recovery of Rs. 8,436-14-0 on account of arrears of rent for the period from February 1950 to June 1956. Since April 1947 the defendant is the tenant of a portion of No. 26B, Asutosh Mookerjee Road. The agreed rent is Rs. 200/- per month. On 20-12-1949 the defendant applied before the Rent Controller in Calcutta for fixation of standard rent. On 23-3-1950 the Rent Controller fixed the standard rent at Rs. 96-4-0 per month with effect from 1-12-1949. An appeal was filed from this order. On 31-3-1950 the West Bengal Premises Rent Control (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1950 came into force. By Section 17 of the Act further proceedings in the rent fixation matter was continued under the new Act. On 13-3-1951 the subordinate Judge. Alipore, dismissed the appeal. Later on in Civil Revision case No. 1303 of 1951 this appeal was remanded for rehearing by the District Judge on the ground that the Subordinate Judge was not competent to hear the appeal On 3-3-1953 the District Judge set aside the order dated 23-3-1950 and sent the case back on remand to the Rent Controller for determination of the standard rent. On 18-9-1953 the Rent Controller dismissed the application on the ground that the tenant had failed to discharge the onus. The tenant as also the landlord filed two separate appeals from this order. On 30-3-1954 the District Judge sitting in appeal fixed the standard rent at Rs. 233/- per month with effect from 1-1-1950 On 21-3-1956 this Court sitting in revision modified the order dated 30-3-1954 and fixed the standard rent under Section 9 (1) (e) of the Act at Rs. 199-10 per month with effect from 1-1-1950. On 3-7-1956 the plaintiff instituted this suit claiming arrears of rent from February 1950 up to June 1956 at the rate of Rs. 199-10-0 per month after giving credit for the deposits made by the defendant during this period at the rate of Rs. 96-4-0 per month. There is also a claim for interest but that claim has been abandoned.

(2.) Pursuant to an interim order made in this suit certain payments were made by the defendant to the plaintiff's attorney. The only substantial question is the question of limitation. No evidence as to the actual amount due was taken. Learned counsel on both sides stated that the amount if any depended upon the question of limitation and that the parties would be able to agree as to the amount if any due to the plain tiff on the basis of the judgment of this Court on the question of limitation. The following issues were raised:

(3.) Briefly stated the contention of the plaintiff is: