BHAGABAT PATNAIK Vs. MADHUSUDHAN PANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point involved in this appeal is limitation. The appeal arises out of a suit filed by the unsuccessful plaintiffs in the Courts below for vacating possession of the suit house, for Rs. 288/- as arrears at rent, mesne profits and other incidental reliefs. The plaintiff's suit was dismissed by both the courts below as barred by limitation under Article 139 of the Indian Limitation Act.

(2.) THE facts, so far as material for purposes of deciding the question of limitation are, these: The suit house belonged to Panda family of the defendants. In 1921 at a certain court auction sale one Narayana Gouda purchased the suit house and obtained delivery of possession. On August 15, 1921 father of the plaintiffs purchased the suit house from Narayan Gouda by a registered sale deed. Thereafter the suit house was leased out by the plaintiffs to the defendants' family for 3 years. In 1930 there was a lease by the plaintiffs for a further period of 3 years. The last lease given to the defendants was on April 25, 1935 under a registered Muchalika Ext. 4 for a rent of Rs. 48/- per annum. The lease provided that if at the end of 3 years the defendants did not vacate, they would continue in possession paying Bhada (rent) at an enhanced rate, namely, Rs. 5/- per month. On May 4, 1944, the plaintiffs gave the defendants a registered notice (Ext. B) to quit the suit house and pay the arrears of rent failing which the plaintiffs threatened to file a suit. In 1953 the plaintiffs filed a suit which on transfer was renumbered as T. S. 58 of 1955. The plaintiffs did not pursue that suit on the ground that notice to quit was not according to law. In 1957 the said suit was withdrawn by the plaintiffs with permission to file a fresh suit as the notice to terminate the lease was defective. In 1958 the plaintiffs filed the present suit for ejectment of the defendants as aforesaid after giving a further notice to quit dated february, 1957, Ext. 5. The defence is that Narayan Gouda was a mere benamdar for defendants: that the lease deeds from 1921 to 1936 were ail nominal; that the defendants never paid any rent; and that the suit was barred by limitation. On merits both the courts found in favour of the plaintiffs, namely, that all the lease deeds were genuine and not benami, and that the defendants were tenants under the said lease deeds, but they dismissed the suit as barred by limitation under article 139 of the Limitation Act which is this : description of suit. Period of Time from which limitation. period begins to run 139. By a landlord to Twelve When the tenancy is recover possession years. determined. from a tenant.

(3.) THE question is: When was the tenancy determined in the present case ? The relevant provisions of Section 111 of the Transfer of Property Act are these: